Writ petition seeking quashing of a land resumption order and mandamus to consider an appeal. The High Court held that the statutory appeal remedy precludes writ jurisdiction and directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.
Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the pending appeal and pass appropriate orders within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
PETITIONER :
KIRANKUMAR,AGED 34 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, VATTEKKATT VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O, AVANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680541.
BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI SMT.SREELAKSHMI R. SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
RESPONDENTS:
R BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was allotted a plot having an extent of 25 cents in Sy.No.366/2 of Puthussery Central Village, in the New Industrial Development Area, Kanjikode on the strength of Ext.P1 allotment letter dated 25.01.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent General Manager, District Industries Centre, Palakkad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P15 proceedings dated 18.12.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, ordering resumption of the said land. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Director of Industries and Commerce to consider Ext.P16 appeal and pass appropriate orders.
also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das
Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] , the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially
-3WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High
Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
-4-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419] and Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433] the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
-5-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge that order.
that, if Ext.P16 appeal filed by the petitioner is in order and the same is still pending consideration, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. If any application for interim relief is filed, that application shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent.
-6-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
consideration, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised before the 2nd respondent, at appropriate stage.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/5/1
-7-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2018. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE CUM LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2018. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P3 LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 19.10.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 05.05.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 13.07.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.07.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P9 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2020. |
-8-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07.08.2020. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P11 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.08.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P13 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.I-3/1086/ 2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P16 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P15 ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2020. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory appeal remedy is available and pending.
Whether the writ court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider the pending appeal and pass appropriate orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das AgarwalRelied on¶21
(2014) 1 SCC 603 · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.Relied on¶26
(2018) 3 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of TaxesReferred¶29
AIR 1964 SC 1419 · Who else cites this
Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of OrissaReferred¶29
(1983) 2 SCC 433 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kirankumar
State of Kerala
Director, Directorate of Industries and Commerce
General Manager, District Industries Centre
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
