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. 25737 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM,SHORNUR, REPRESENTED BY DR. THAMPI BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS:1THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6950141THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014 2THE SECRETARYREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD 678001REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD 6780013THE MANAGING DIRECTORKERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695034KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 6950344MARUDAMBIKA.NW/O.R.KRISHNAN, THEKKEPAVADY,PAZHAMBALACODE PO, PALAKKAD 678001W/O.R.KRISHNAN, THEKKEPAVADY,PAZHAMBALACODE PO, PALAKKAD 678001 BY ADVS. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator holding Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-09/R- 4900 on the route Palakkad-Guruvayur, operating asLimited Stop Ordinary Service with a settled setof timings has filed this writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, seekinga writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 proceedingsdated 21.07.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary ofthe Regional Transport Authority and a writ ofmandamus commanding the Secretary, RegionalTransport Authority, Palakkad, the 2[nd] respondentherein to re-consider the question of revision oftimings of the 4[th] respondent's service and allotrunning time applicable to ordinary service, asrelating to the 4[th] respondent's service, on theroute Palakkad-Guruvaryur, in respect of stagecarriage bearing registration No.KL-50/E-6622. 2.On 13.08.2018, when this writ petitioncame up for admission, the learned SeniorGovernment Pleader took notice on admission forrespondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing Counselfor KSRTC took notice on admission for the 3[rd]respondent and the learned counsel for 4[th] respondent entered appearance through counsel. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC representing the 3[rd]respondent and also the learned counsel for the 4[th]respondent. 4.The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as towhether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4order of the 2[nd] respondent, in exercise of theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.The fact that Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary is revisable under Section90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not indispute. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved byExt.P4 proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent it is forhim to invoke the statutory remedy available underSection 90 of the Act. 6.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Standing Counsel for KSRTC representing the 3[rd]respondent and also the learned counsel for the 4[th]respondent. 4.The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as towhether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4order of the 2[nd] respondent, in exercise of theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.The fact that Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary is revisable under Section90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not indispute. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved byExt.P4 proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent it is forhim to invoke the statutory remedy available underSection 90 of the Act. 6.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Courtreiterated that, non-entertainment of a writpetition 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. 7.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 a person, unless the same is challenged before theappropriate forum, within the prescribed timelimit, the said order will become final. In the above circumstances, this writ petitionfiled on 30.07.2018 is dismissed as not maintainable, without prejudice to the right ofthe petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 proceedings ofthe 2[nd] respondent, before the State TransportAppellate Tribunal by invoking the statutoryremedy available under Section 90 of the Act. All legal and factual contentions raised bythe petitioner are left open to be raised beforethe State Transport Appellate Tribunal atappropriate stage. SD/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF THE PETITIONERTRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.08.2000TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.08.2000 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WPC.NO. 24113/2018 DATED 20.07.201824113/2018 DATED 20.07.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.07.201821.07.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STA DECISION DATED 21.04.201821.04.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF RTA PALAKKAD DATED 29.07.2011DATED 29.07.2011 EXHIBIT P7` TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MVARP NO. 296/2011 DATED 19.11.2016296/2011 DATED 19.11.2016 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF DECISION IN AS.ITEM NO. 96TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (MS)NO. 45/2015/TRANS DATED 20.08.2015TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (MS)NO. 45/2015/TRANS DATED 20.08.2015 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MVARP NO. 91/2016DATED 11.01.2017DATED 11.01.2017 EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OPC.NO. 428/17DATED 22.02.2017DATED 22.02.2017EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN ORDER IN RP.NO. 350/17 DATED 18.09.2017 350/17 DATED 18.09.2017 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OPC.NO. 428/17DATED 22.02.2017DATED 22.02.2017 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL PA TO JUDGE RR