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 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940WP(C).No. 17519 of 2018 PETITIONER: ABDUL KHADER C.AGED 57 YEARSCHALATH HOUSE, THIRUVANGOOR P.O.KOILANDY, CHEMANCHERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.G.PRABHAKARANSMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: 1THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITYVATAKARA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 673 101 2THE SECRETARYREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA- 673 1013THE DTO KSRTCVATAKARA- 673 101 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON25.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a stage carriageoperator holding Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Viliapally-Vadakara-Kozhikode operating as ordinary service with stage carriage bearingRegistration No.KL-11/AJ-5871 has filed this writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking a writ of certiorari to quashExt.P3 proceedings dated 12.04.2018 of the 1[st]respondent Regional Transport Authority, wherebythe variation applied for in Ext.P2 applicationdated 12.03.2018 to operate the said permit asLimited Stop Ordinary Service stands rejected. Thepetitioner has also sought for other consequentialreliefs. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also thelearned Standing Counsel for KSRTC representingthe 3[rd] respondent.3.Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1[st] respondentis revisable before the State Transport AppellateTribunal under Section 90 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. Rule 141 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with appeals under Section 89 and revision petitions under Section 90. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 141, which prescribes time limit for filing appeals and revision petitions,an appeal under Section 89 of the Act shall be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and an application for revisionunder Section 90 of the Act shall be presented tothe State Transport Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of order against which theapplication is preferred. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 141, a fee of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid in respect of each appeal and the fee payable inrespect of each application for revision shall be Rs.1,000/-, payment being made by means of Treasury chalan to be enclosed along with a memorandum of appeal or application of revision. 4.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court reiterated 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. Itis essentially a rule of policy, convenience anddiscretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly,it is within the discretion of the High Court togrant relief under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, despite the existence of alternativeremedy. However, High Court must not interfere ifthere is an adequate efficacious alternativeremedy available to the petitioner and he hasapproached the High Court without availing thesame, unless he has made out an exceptional casewarranting such interference or there existssufficient ground to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226. 6.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 6.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. 7.Viewed in the light of the law laid downin the decisions referred to supra, conclusion isirresistible that if the petitioner is feelingaggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings of the 1[st]respondent Regional Transport Authority, he has toapproach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal byfiling a revision petition under Section 90 of theMotor Vehicles Act. Without prejudice to the aforesaid right ofthe petitioner, this writ petition filed on29.05.2018 is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBTIP1TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT WITH ITS NUMBER NO.P.ST.18/39/1992 EXHIBITP2THE RUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12-03-2018 ON THE ROUTE VILLIAPALLY-VADAKARA-KOZHIKODE OPERATING AS ORDINARY SERVICE WITH KL 11/AJ 5871 EXHIBITP3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTADATED 12-04-2018 EXHIBITP4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WITH ITS NO.GO(P) NO.8/17/TRAN DATED 23-03-2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.117/2016 DATED 22-03-2018 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR