Dismissed

D.Ramachander v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/16708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged SHO's inaction regarding their complaint against unofficial respondents for assault and obstruction. The Court held effective alternative remedy of private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. exists and dismissed Writ Petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to avail appropriate remedy under law. No order as to costs.

D.Ramachander Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Ar^{HYD E RAB AD} H r G H^{c o u Rr} i JX5,:161,'n,35 l:iL:#.i

¶2

,[Hi,'dJ3i,5lT'lJfiI3'5#f^i"

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANT]}

¶5

WRITP^{ETITIONNO:167080F} 2 o22

¶6

Between: .-^-^ ^^^ D,r emnlovee. Ryo, ""'l"Blffii%"1?11"i;,i13"?3i?l['fn?10p,,{"J5'lii,$il3$n3[iliil?"'in"#i': Ranga^{ReddY Dist'}

¶7

,f;:h"H#Ibyj:"til'J#i,',,i33:'3fl,i;fi 3i;ifli,i,S;,,%?,5;H"ffi^3''

¶8

.''PETITIONERS

¶9

ot?. ,n" State^{of relangana' Repby its Principal Secretary Department of Home}

¶10

'' Secretariat, HYderabad

¶11

The Director^{Generalof Police Police'HeadQuarters Lakdi-ka-pool} HYderabad.

¶12

3, The^{Commissioner of Police' Cyberabad at Gachibowli' Hyderabad'}

¶13

The SHO^{Pet Basheerabad' Cyberabad Commissionerate'}

¶14

Anianeyulu,^{S/o. Not KnownAge,50Yrs' Jairamnagar' Old Jeedimetla Village'}

¶15

Oritnoritrprr Mandal' Ranga Reddy urst'

¶16

Anitha,^{W/o. not KnownAge} {3tr9' [/ot^{Jairam Nagar'Old Jeedimetla Village} Quthbullapur^{Mandal, RangaHeddy ulsl'}

¶17

T.PentaiahPentaiah'S/o.notKnownAge.43Yrs,Fl/o.JairamNagar,old' i#di,iieirrVillise Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist'

¶18

Sabitha, W/o.^{not Known Age.40Yrs,} flq .Jaggm^{Nagar'Old Jeedimetla} Village Quthbullapur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist}

¶19

Anuradha, W/o.^{not KnownAge,27Yrs,Rl/o. Jairam Nagar,Old Jeedimetla} Village Quthbullapur Mandal,^{RangaReddy Dist'}

¶20

Boodevi, W/o. not Known^{Age.42Yrs,FJo. Jairam Nagar,Old Jeedimetla} Village Quthbullapur^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDist.}

¶21

Shailaja, W/o. not^{KnownAge.33Yrs,8/o.JairamNagar,Old Jeedimetla} Villagd Quthbullapur Mandal,^{RangaReddy Dist.}

¶22

12.Balaswamy, S/o. not Known^{Age.43Yrs,Fl/o. JairamNagar,OldJeedimetla} Village Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy^Dist.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more parrticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 4rd respondent in not taking action against the unofficial Respondents on my complaint dt 151312022, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstar,ces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order directing the respondent No.4 herein to register a crime against the unofficial Respondents for assaulting and abusing me in the interest of^justice.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. JANARDHAN^{GOUD SUNKARI}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No's.1^{to 4: SRIS'RAMA MOHANRAO' AGP FOR} HOME

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No'S. 5 to 12 : NONEAPPEARED}

¶30

The Gourt made the^{following: ORDER}

¶31

,1-

¶32

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 1670A OF 2022

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in not taking action on the unofficial respondents based on the complaint of the petitioners dated t5.o3.2022.

¶35

Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thc petit.ioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of thc house property admeasuring 148 square yards. I{c submits rhat in the last week of September 2O21, whcn thc officials oi GtlMC, Quthbullapur tried to interfere u,ith thc possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, they filed Wrir l)ctitiorr No. 2760 I of 2021. It is submitted that this Courr by ordcr dated l:J.l l.2o2l directed the Commissioner, GIIMC, euthbullapur Circle not to interfere with the possession and cnjovmcnt ol thc pctitioners over the house property and not to dcmolish. I-carned counsel submits that in March, 2022, thc pctitioncrs slar[ed constructing the compound wall around r heir housr: to protcct the property from encroachers, then all thc official resporrcie nts obstructed them from proceeding with construction ;l ncl abuscd and assaulted them. Learncd counscl submits that lhc pctitioncrs filed the

¶36

¶37

complaint dated 15.O3.2022 before the 4th respondent and sought for action against the unofhcial respondenls for criminally trespassing and assaulting them but no action has been taken.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleadcr for Flome Sri S. Ramamohana Rao submits that he will gct inst-ructions in this matter and file a detailed counter.

¶39

Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vvhencver a person complains of violation of his fundamcntal^righ t^or statutory right, one of the self imposed^{restraint is n'hcn thcre is} statutorily engrafted adequate and^{efficacious alterntttive} remedy available tO such^{personto redresshis gricvancethe} courl do not entertdin^{the writ petitionbut relegatethe party to} 't avail such^{remedy Lefore invoking extraordinarv jurisdictio:-rof} this Court.

¶40

BhirnidiPdtl^{AidPoorr.qBholvotnl o' IzLnd Acqatsltlon Officer' Yelwdt Resentoir} Project,^{Peddapura,n, EastGodarJarl Dtstrlct' A'P' dndothersl'}

¶41

The Court^{has recognisedsomccx('e plionsto thc} rule of alternative^{remedy i'e' whcrethe statuton' authorit- has} not acted in^{accordancewith the provisions o[ the cnactmcntin} question, or^{in dehanceof"the fundamentalprinciplcs of judi<:ial}

¶42

I 20os(3) ALD 233(LB)

¶43

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, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR i964 SC l4l9l , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) i3l I and other similar judgments that the High Court will not cntcrtain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggricved person or the statute under which the action complained of has bcen takcn itself contains a mechanism for redressal o[ gricvancr: still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not bc entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." (emphasis supplied)

¶44

Commissioner of Inco,?re Tot v. Chhq.bil Dass Agarual2 6. Despitc wide powcrs conlcrred by Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, thc C()urts must bcar in mind certain self-imposed limitations on thc exerr--ise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitudc ol the power under the said articles requires grcat caution in its cxcrcisc,

¶45

Std.te o! West Bengd.l o. Comrnittee Jor^{protectio^} of Dedocrdtic Rlghts

¶46

'^{(2014)1 scc603}

¶47

¶48

So far as the view taken by the High Court th.rt the rcmcdy by u,ay of recourse to arbitration clausc was available to thc appellants and thercfore the writ pctition hlcd b1, the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an altcrnativc remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability cf the alternativc remedy, the High Court may still excrcise its writ jurisdiction in at lcast three contingencies: (i) whcrc the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental llights; (ii) whcre thcre is failure of principles of natural^j usticc or, (iii) wherc thc orders or proceedings are wholly without^{jurisdi<:tion} \ or thc uires of an Actand is challenged.

¶49

Harba'nslal Sahal(l a. Indlon Oil Corpn. Ltd..3 8. (ienerally, this Court is not entertaining the Writ Pctitions filed questioning the registration or non^- registration of thc^(:omplaint / FII?, as, as rightly pointed out b)' thc learncd Assisl.ant^(]overnment Pleader, the Coordinatc^{llench o[ this} Court in Wril I'ctition No.^{38397 of 2079 and batch, datcd} Ofi.Ol].20 l9 has catcgorically^{observed that in the c:rse o[ rton-} rcgisrering thc complaint,^{the remedyfor thc affcctcclpcrson is} to filt: a private complaint.

¶50

'(2001)^{2 SupremeCourt Cases 107}

)

I {

The writ remedy is no doubt^{ancxtraordinary} remedy and in every case^just because a^{case is made out on} action / inaction of an authority vested with^{power,the Writ} court will not entertain the writ petition and the affccted^party has to avail the remedy available under law. In Whirlpool Corporation u. Registror of Trade Marks, Mumbai4, th.c Ilon'ble Apex Court has observed that under Article 226 of thc Constitution, the High Court having rcgard to the facts and circumstances has discretion to errtcrtain or not, to entcrtain a writ petition but the I{igh Court has imposed cerlain rcstricti()ns one of which is that if an effectivc altcrnative remedy is available, the l{igh court would not normally exercise the jurisdiction. tsut the alternative remedy has been consistently hcld by this Court not to operatc as a bar in at least thrcc contingencies; namely where thc wril. petitior-r has bccn filed for the enforcement of any of the I..unclamcntal RighLs or where there has been a violation of thc principlc o[ natural Justice or where the order or proccedings arc wholly u,ithout.jurisdiction or the ,ires of an Act is challenged. 10. In the light of the law laid down by this Court ancl the Apcx Court referred l.o supra, r,r,hcn Lhr:rt__ is a slatutoril_v_ engraftcd adcquate and efficacious altr:rn:rlivc rcmr:d1, availablc

¶55

'⁽ 1998) 8 scc 1

¶56

¶57

to the person, who complains, to redress his grievance, the Court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the. party to avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner is to file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is an effective alternative r.emedy, but not a Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Consritution of lndia. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶58

I 1. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of giving libcrty to thc petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available to them undcr [aw. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. 'lhe Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.

¶59

¶60

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEh:HAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

.',i SECTION OFFICER

¶63