In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chhabil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 20524 of 2018 PETITIONER: SAJITH KUMAR RAGED 49, S/O RAMANKUTTY NAIR, THARA, ESALICOODE, OORUTTAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH BY ADVSRI T.P.SAJAN STANDING COUNSEL,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was a driver in KeralaState Road Transport Corporation (for brevity'KSRTC') has filed this writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, seekinga writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2to remove the endorsement made on Ext.P6 drivinglicense regarding suspension of the petitioner'slicense from 20.10.2017 to 13.12.2017 inconnection with Crime No.3158/2017 of CityTraffic Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and awrit of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent notto proceed with Ext.P7 demand notice dated03.01.2018. The further relief sought for is awrit of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order passedby the 2[nd] respondent dated 20.10.2017. 2.Heard the learned Counsel for thepetitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also thelearned Standing Counsel for KSRTC representing the 3[rd] respondent. 3.The pleadings and materials on recordwould show that while the petitioner was drivinga KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/7354,it met with an accident, in which the petitioner along with other 19 passengers sustainedinjuries. In connection with the said motoraccident,policehasregisteredCrime No.3158/2017 of City Traffic Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioneralleging offences under Sections 279 and 337 ofthe Indian Penal Code 1860. Ext.P1 is a truecopy of the FIR. 4.AfterregistrationofCrime No.3158/2017, the petitioner was issued withExt.P2 show cause notice dated 09.10.2017, toshow cause for not suspending his driving licenseunder Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.On receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the petitionersubmitted Ext.P3 explanation. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent who is the Additional LicensingAuthority, issued Ext.P4 order dated 20.10.2017, whereby the driving license of the petitionerstands suspended for a period of two months from 20.10.2017 to 19.12.2017. 5.If the petitioner was feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, he could have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days. As the petitioner failed to challenge Ext.P4 order by filing an appeal before the AppellateAuthority, within the time limit stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, an endorsement, in terms of Ext.P4 order, was madeon Ext.P6 driving license, as to suspension ofthe same for a period from 20.10.2017 to 19.12.2017. 6.In the motor accident occurred on22.06.2017, the bus owned by KSRTC sustaineddamages and the Corporation had to spent a sum ofRs.40,192/- towards maintenance expenses. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.13,372.86/-represents the cost of materials used. By Ext.P7memorandum dated 30.01.2018 of the 3[rd] respondent KSRTC, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sumof Rs.13,373/- on or before 20.02.2018, failing which the same will be recovered from his salary. 7.As far as the challenge made againstExt.P4 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent is sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, an endorsement, in terms of Ext.P4 order, was madeon Ext.P6 driving license, as to suspension ofthe same for a period from 20.10.2017 to 19.12.2017. 6.In the motor accident occurred on22.06.2017, the bus owned by KSRTC sustaineddamages and the Corporation had to spent a sum ofRs.40,192/- towards maintenance expenses. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.13,372.86/-represents the cost of materials used. By Ext.P7memorandum dated 30.01.2018 of the 3[rd] respondent KSRTC, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sumof Rs.13,373/- on or before 20.02.2018, failing which the same will be recovered from his salary. 7.As far as the challenge made againstExt.P4 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent is concerned, the said order was an appealable orderunder sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act.The petitioner has not chosen to challenge thesaid order before the Appellate Authority within30 days. Having failed to challenge Ext.P4 order,by availing the statutory remedy, the petitionercannot challenge the same by filing a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 8.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Courtreiterated that, non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia when an efficacious alternative remedy isavailable is a rule of self-imposed limitation.It is essentially a rule of policy, convenienceand discretion rather than a rule of law.Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of theHigh Court to grant relief under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, despite the existenceof alternative remedy. However, High Court mustnot interfere if there is an adequate efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitionerand he has approached the High Court withoutavailing the same, unless he has made out anexceptional case warranting such interference orthere exists sufficient ground to invoke theextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 9.In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4)KHC 4), a Full Bench of this Court held that,whenever an adverse order is passed against aperson, unless the same is challenged before the appropriate forum, within the prescribed timelimit, the said order will become final. 10. Viewed in the light of the law laid downin the decisions referred to supra, conclusion isirresistible that the belated challenge made inthis writ petition against Ext.P4 order dated20.10.2017 of the 2[nd] respondent can only berepelled, so also the consequential relief soughtfor to remove the consequential endorsement madeon Ext.P6 driving license. Therefore, thechallenge made against Ext.P4 order and also theconsequential relief are repelled. 10. As far as the challenge made againstExt.P7 notice is concerned, the petitioner hasnot sought for a writ of certiorari to quashExt.P7 demand notice. In the absence of any suchrelief, the the petitioner cannot seek a writ ofmandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent not toproceed with Ext.P7. Moreover, a perusal ofExt.P7 order would show that KSRTC had to spend a sum of Rs.40,192/- for repairing the damagescaused to its bus. However, in Ext.P7 noticerecovery from the petitioner is limited to a sumof Rs.13,373/- only, which represents the cost of materials. 11. The learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that the petitioner may be permittedto pay the amount demanded in Ext.P7 notice inmonthly instalments, considering the fact that heis drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- only. 12. Having considered the submission made bythe learned Counsel on both sides, I deem itappropriate to permit the petitioner to pay thesum of Rs.13,373/-, demanded in Ext.P7 notice, inthree equal monthly instalments, which shall berecovered from his salary. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SD/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX sum of Rs.40,192/- for repairing the damagescaused to its bus. However, in Ext.P7 noticerecovery from the petitioner is limited to a sumof Rs.13,373/- only, which represents the cost of materials. 11. The learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that the petitioner may be permittedto pay the amount demanded in Ext.P7 notice inmonthly instalments, considering the fact that heis drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- only. 12. Having considered the submission made bythe learned Counsel on both sides, I deem itappropriate to permit the petitioner to pay thesum of Rs.13,373/-, demanded in Ext.P7 notice, inthree equal monthly instalments, which shall berecovered from his salary. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SD/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR