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. 24194 of 2018 PETITIONER: RAMAKRISHNANAGED 54 YEARSS/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, POTHENCHERY HOUSE,POKKOTTUKKAVU P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON 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 carriageoperator holding Ext.P1 permit in respect ofstage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-10/AV-7475 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, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 notice dated10.07.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary ofRegional Transport Authority, Palakkad and a writof mandamus commanding the said respondent toconsider Ext.P9 request relating to the serviceof the 4[th] respondent on the route Palakkad-Guruvayur in respect of her stage carriagebearing Registration No.KL-10/AV-7475, operatingas Express Service, for allotment of runningtime at the rate of 1.75 minutes per km as provided for in Ext.P8 circular dated 21.04.2018,in the timing conference which is scheduled to be held on 21.07.2018. admission to the 4[th] respondent, this Court passedthe following order: The learned Senior GovernmentPleader takes notice on admission forrespondents 1 to 3. Issue urgent noticeon admission by special messenger tothe 4[th]respondent returnable by24.07.2018. 2.The learned Senior GovernmentPleader, on instructions, from the 2[nd]respondent Secretary of the RegionalTransport Authority would submit thatthe petitioner can participate in thetiming conference scheduled to conveneon 21.07.2018 and raise his objections,if any. 3.The learned Senior GovernmentPleader to file statement/counteraffidavit. 4.Any decision taken in thetiming conference scheduled to be heldon 21.07.2018 pursuant to Ext.P7notice, in so far as it relates to thestage carriage bearing registrationNo.KL-50/E-6622 of the 4[th] respondent(Sl.No.2 in Ext.P7) shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. List on 24.07.2018. 3.Thereafter, on 06.08.2018, the petitioner filed I.A.No.14526/2018, seeking an order to amend the writ petition by incorporating a challenge against the proceedings bearingNo.C3/182/2016P of the 2[nd]respondent dated21.07.2018 and another application namely,I.A.No.14527/2018 seeking an order to stay the operation of the said proceedings dated21.07.2018, pending disposal of this writpetition. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learnedCounsel for the 4[th] respondent. 5.The relief sought for in this writpetition is confined to the timing conferencescheduled to be held on 21.07.2018, in terms ofExt.P7 notice. During the pendency of this writ petition, the timing conference has already been convened. The decision taken in that timingconference is sought to be challenged in thiswrit petition by way of an amendment. 6.The fact that the aforesaid proceedingsdated 21.07.2018 of the 2[nd]respondent isrevisable under Section 90 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 is not in dispute. If the petitioneris feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings ofthe 2[nd] respondent, it is for him to invoke thestatutory remedy available under Section 90 ofthe Act. 7.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil 5.The relief sought for in this writpetition is confined to the timing conferencescheduled to be held on 21.07.2018, in terms ofExt.P7 notice. During the pendency of this writ petition, the timing conference has already been convened. The decision taken in that timingconference is sought to be challenged in thiswrit petition by way of an amendment. 6.The fact that the aforesaid proceedingsdated 21.07.2018 of the 2[nd]respondent isrevisable under Section 90 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 is not in dispute. If the petitioneris feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings ofthe 2[nd] respondent, it is for him to invoke thestatutory remedy available under Section 90 ofthe Act. 7.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.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 of the 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. 8.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 theappropriate forum, within the prescribed timelimit, the said order will become final. In the result, this writ petition standsdismissed as not maintainable without prejudiceto the right of the petitioner to challengeproceedings bearingNo.C3/182/2016Pdated21.07.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent before the StateTransport Appellate Tribunal by invoking the statutory remedy under Section 90 of the Act. closed without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner. All legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at appropriate stage. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR