Dismissed

Savithri v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016WA/1149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1149 of 2016 disposed of a challenge to the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition. The Single Judge had held that an alternative statutory appeal remedy was available, not warranting writ intervention. The High Court affirmed this view, clarifying the Single Judge's observations did not prejudice the pendency of the statutory appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of; the Single Judge's judgment was not interfered with.

Savithri Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WA.No. 1149 of 2016 () IN WP(C).17752/2016 --------------------------------------------

¶3

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17752/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-06-2016

¶4

APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------

¶5

SAVITHRI D/O. LAKSHMI, S.K.V. PHARMACY, MUDAPURAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT JAYA NILAYAM, KEEZHUVILLAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶7

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXESDEPARTMENT (EXCISE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, EXCISE COMPLEX, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695003 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOTTAKKAKAM, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695023 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 101. 5. THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, CHIRAYANKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 304.

¶9

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.VINCENT

¶10

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶12

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶13

W.A.No.1149 OF 2016

¶14

Dated this the 14^th June, 2016

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶17

The appellant has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17752 of 2016 challenging Ext.P10 order of the second respondent by which Ext.P2 Form L-3 licence issued to the appellant was ordered to be suspended. The learned single Judge by the judgment dated 01.06.2016 dismissed the writ petition taking note of the fact that as against Ext.P10 order the appellant is having an alternate remedy by way of appeal and that, Ext.P11 appeal filed by him challenging Ext.P10 order is pending consideration before the first respondent.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal contending that the observations made by the learned single Judge in the

¶19

W.A.No.1149 OF 2015

¶20

¶21

impugned judgment would prejudice his contentions in Ext.P11 appeal, which is pending consideration before the first respondent.

¶22

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶23

appellant and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

¶24

From a reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge, we find that the question that was considered by the learned single Judge is as to whether the appellant can invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against Ext.P10 order, when a statutory remedy by way of an appeal is provided under the relevant statute i.e., the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. On a finding that the said Rules provides for a statutory appeal and that, the appellant has already availed that statutory remedy by filing Ext.P11 appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court

¶25

W.A.No.1149 OF 2015

¶26

¶27

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the competent authority has taken the decision after providing opportunity to the appellant as provided under Rule 87 and has passed an order specifying the reasons for suspension.

¶28

We find absolutely no reason for the apprehension raised by the appellant in the memorandum of writ appeal, since the observations made by the learned single Judge as referred to above were in the context of declining interference against Ext.P10 order invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when Ext.P10 order is not one issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶29

In the result, we find absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17752 of 2016. However, we make it clear that the observations made by the learned single Judge as referred to above are in the context of declining interference against Ext.P10 order, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is for the first respondent to

¶30

W.A.No.1149 OF 2015

¶31

¶32

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 appeal, strictly

¶33

in accordance with law.

¶34

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

¶35

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

Savithri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savithri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabu Vs Anju

The Administrator Vs T.Cheriya Koya

Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ashalekshmi

Santha Amma Vs Eriyattu Kuzhiyil Ashrad

E.K.Narayanan Vs Union of India

A.K.Raveendran and Another Vs Secretary, Kerala Motor Labour Union