In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chhabil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 11532 of 2018 PETITIONER THE MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.984, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695131, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), (GENERAL), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695131. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S. SHEEJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sdr/- WP(C).No. 11532 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.(1)1764/15/K.DIS DATED 08-04-2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.47 DATED 5-9-2015 OF THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-9-2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.35641/2017 DATED 8-11-2017.EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1)9576/15 DATED 7-2-2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL/TRUE COPY/PA TO JUDGE ANIL K NARENDRAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No. 11532 OF 2018 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3[rd] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner which is a Service Co-operative Bankregistered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has filedthis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated07.02.2018 of the 1[st] respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and for other consequentialreliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st]respondent to approve revision of Staff Pattern and FeederCategory Sub Rules, as resolved in Ext. P2 resolution dated05.09.2015 [wrongly stated as Ext.P1 in relief No. (iii)].2.Section 83 of the Co-operative Societies Act dealswith appeals to other authorities. As per clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 83, an appeal shall lie against any ordermade by any person exercising all or any of the powers of theRegistrar. As per sub-section (2) of Section 83, an appealunder sub-section (1) of that Section shall be made within 60days from the date of order or decision to the Government, if the order or decision was made by the Registrar; and to theRegistrar, in other case. As per sub-section (2), theGovernment or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall passsuch orders on such appeal as he may think fit. 3.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Courtreiterated that, non-entertainment of a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficaciousalternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposedlimitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience anddiscretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is withinthe discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence ofalternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfereif there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedyavailable to the petitioner and he has approached the HighCourt without availing the same, unless he has made out anexceptional case warranting such interference or thereexists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226. 4.Therefore, the mere averment in the writ petition that the statutory remedy is not adequate or efficacious or 4.Therefore, the mere averment in the writ petition that the statutory remedy is not adequate or efficacious or that, since the entire action is politically motivated, thestatutory remedy provided is not an efficacious one, will notmake out an exceptional case for interference under Article226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence ofalternative remedy. 5. In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 4), a Full Bench of this Court held that, whenever anadverse order is passed against a person, unless the sameis challenged before the appropriate forum, within theprescribed time limit, the said order will become final. In such circumstances, this writ petition filed on 02.04.2018, is dismissed as not maintainable, withoutprejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke thestatutory remedy under Section 83 (1) (j) of the Act againstExt.P5 order. Sd/- ANIL K NARENDRAN JUDGE