In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 8224 of 2018 PETITIONER: SHOKATHALI R.KS/O.MUHAMMED,RAMANKANDI HOUSE, THOOVAKODE P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN: 673 304REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MUNNER.T., AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.MAMMUKOYA, IDIYATTIL HOUSE,OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 019. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: 1THE SECRETARYREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673 513. 2THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERKERALA MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DTC, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020. 3ANILKUMAR P.B.S/O.VELAYUDHAN P.B., KANNANCHANKANDI HOUSE,BHAGAVATHY PARAMBATH, NELLIKKODE P.O.,KOZHIKODE 673 016. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON SMT C.S SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator on the routeMuchukunnu-Kozhikode via Koyilandi in respect of stage carriage bearingregistration No.KL-44E-2298, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit-P5 order of the first respondent dated 1.3.2018 and seeking a writ ofmandamus commanding the first respondent to consider Exhibit-P4objection dated 20.2.2018 submitted by the petitioner and resettle thetimings of the third respondent, who is another stage carriage operator,on the route Purakkad-Medical College via Muchukunnu, Koyilandi andKozhikode, in respect of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18-3767, taking note of Exhibit-P2 order as the existing timings of the thirdrespondent. 2.On 21.3.2018, when this Writ Petition came up for admission,this Court issued notice to the third respondent. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedSenior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and alsothe learned counsel for the third respondent.the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for thethird respondent would point out that Exhibit-P5 order of the firstrespondent is revisable under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988respondent is revisable under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 5.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court reiterated that, non-entertainment of awrit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when anefficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposedlimitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretionrather 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 existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court mustnot interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedyavailable to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court withoutavailing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional casewarranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invokethe extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 6.In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 4), a FullBench of this Court held that, whenever an adverse order is passedagainst a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriateforum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final. 7.Having considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel on both sides and taking note of the law laid down in thedecisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that if the petitioner isfeeling aggrieved by Exhibit-P5 order of the first respondent, he has to file 6.In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 4), a FullBench of this Court held that, whenever an adverse order is passedagainst a person, unless the same is challenged before the appropriateforum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final. 7.Having considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel on both sides and taking note of the law laid down in thedecisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that if the petitioner isfeeling aggrieved by Exhibit-P5 order of the first respondent, he has to file a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, invokingthe provisions under Section 90 of the said Act. 8.In such circumstances, this Writ Petition filed on 9.3.2018 isdismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challengeExhibit-P5 order by filing a revision petition under Section 90 of the Actbefore the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are leftopen to be raised before the said Tribunal at appropriate stage. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P.S. To Judge