In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Inauthorised Officer, State Bank Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) PETITIONERS: 1RAMACHANDRAN NAIRAGED 63 YEARSS/O KUTTAN PILLAI, DEEPA BHAVANAM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAAPUZHA-690 506.AGED 63 YEARSS/O KUTTAN PILLAI, DEEPA BHAVANAM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAAPUZHA-690 506. 2DEEPAK R,AGED 31 YEARSS/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DEEPA BHAVANAM, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAAPUZHA-690 506. BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBANSRI.R.REJISMT.THARA THAMBANSRI.B.BIPINSRI.ARUN BOSE RESPONDENTS: 1THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCOLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 2THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, AALAPPUZHA-689 121.OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, AALAPPUZHA-689 121. 3THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 516. WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) 4THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTHUKULAM, MUTHUKULAM (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516. 5SASIDHARAN PILLAI, INDIRALAYAM HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O.KATHIKAPPALLYTALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516. R1 TO R4 BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADERPLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) -3- JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari toquash Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 issued by the 2[nd]respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur. Thepetitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamuscommanding the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar to allow Ext.P3application dated 24.02.2020 made by the 1[st] petitioner foreffecting mutation of the property having an extent of 3½cents in Re.Sy.No.126/4 of Muthukulam Village. The documentmarked as Ext.P7 is a copy of the revision petition filed by thepetitioner under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules,1966 before the 1[st] respondent District Collector, againstExt.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 and Ext.P8 is a copy of thestay petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners andalso the learned Government Pleader appearing forrespondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of relief proposedto be granted, service on notice on the 5[th] respondent isdispensed with. 3. Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 of the 2[nd] WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is under challenge inExt.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioners before the 1[st]respondent District Collector under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transferof Registry Rules. 4.In Commissioner of Income Tax v. ChhabilDas Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held thatnon-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedyis available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It isessentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion ratherthan a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion ofthe High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, despite the existence of alternativeremedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is anadequate efficacious alternative remedy available to thepetitioner and he has approached the High Court withoutavailing the same, unless he has made out an exceptionalcase warranting such interference or there exists sufficientground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article226. WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[(2018) 3 SCC 85] the ApexCourt reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but hasto be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and inaccordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to beentertained if alternative statutory remedies are available,except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions asobserved in Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra), i.e.,where the statutory authority has not acted in accordancewith the provisions of the enactment in question or indefiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure,or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed,or when an order has been passed in total violation of theprinciples of natural justice. After referring to the law laiddown in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes and Titaghur Paper Mills CompanyLtd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433] the ApexCourt held that High Court will not entertain a petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternativeremedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) under which the action complained of contains a mechanismfor redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forumis created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petitionshould not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 6.In view of the law laid down in the decisionsreferred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that nointerference is warranted on Ext.P6 order of the 2[nd]respondent, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds raisedin this writ petition, when a statutory forum is created underRule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, namely, the 1[st]respondent District Collector, and the petitioners have alreadyfiled Ext.P7 statutory revision before the said revisionalauthority. 7.Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners againstExt.P6 order is now pending consideration before the 1[st]respondent. Along with Ext.P7 revision petition, thepetitioners have also moved Ext.P8 stay petition, which is alsopending consideration. 8.The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition filed by the WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) petitioners are in order, the 1[st] respondent District Collectorshall consider the same and take an appropriate decision,without any delay. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners wouldsubmit that consideration of Exts.P7 and P8 may be withnotice to the petitioners. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of bydirecting the 1[st] respondent District Collector to consider andpass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application for stay, withnotice to the petitioners and also to the 5[th] respondent andafter affording them an opportunity of being heard, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of tendays from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisjudgment. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent shall consider Ext.P7revision petition filed by the petitioners and take anappropriate decision thereon, with notice to both parties,within a further period of two months. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) -8- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) -8- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING 345/2020 DATED 24.2.2020345/2020 DATED 24.2.2020 EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2021SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2021 EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2021BEARING NO G83/2021BEARING NO G83/2021 EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2021FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2021 EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.2.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT12.2.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT