In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Viewed In The Light Of The Law Laid Down In The Decisionsreferred To Supra, The Challenge Made In This Writ Petition Against Exhibit-P4 Order Passed By The Thir

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, 1940 WP(C).No. 31101 of 2018 PETITIONER: WILSON THOMASS/O.THOMAS, NADAKUZHACKAL, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685 581.BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH B.MARARSMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMALLAIJU RAM (KALLIDA)SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: SMT C.S. SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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 the registered owner of a Tata Xenon CrewCab bearing registration No.KL-58/N-8332, which is registered as LMV-Goods Carriage as per Exhibit-P1 Certificate of Registration, has filed thisWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writof certiorari to quash Exhibit-P4 order dated 31.1.2018 of the thirdrespondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Thodupuzha, whereby hisapplication dated 29.1.2018 for alteration of the said goods vehicle as apassenger vehicle, under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamuscommanding the third respondent to alter the vehicle bearing registrationNo.KL-58/N-8332 as non-transport vehicle and issue the registrationcertificate within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.Exhibit-P4 order dated 31.1.2018 of the third respondentregistering authority is one under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. As per Section 57(1) of the said Act, any person aggrieved by anorder of the registering authority under Sections 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48,49, 50, 52, 53, 55 or 56 may, within thirty days of the date on which hehas received notice of such order, appeal against the order to theprescribed authority. If the petitioner is being aggrieved by Exhibit-P4 order of the registering authority, it is for him to invoke the statutoryremedy of appeal provided before the Appellate Authority. 4. In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal[(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court reiterated that, non-entertainment ofa writ 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. 5. 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. 6.Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisionsreferred to supra, the challenge made in this Writ Petition against Exhibit-P4 order passed by the third respondent registering authority cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to challenge Exhibit-P4 order before the Appellate Authority,this Writ Petition, filed on 24.9.2018, is dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-58-N-8332. EXHIBIT P2 6.Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisionsreferred to supra, the challenge made in this Writ Petition against Exhibit-P4 order passed by the third respondent registering authority cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to challenge Exhibit-P4 order before the Appellate Authority,this Writ Petition, filed on 24.9.2018, is dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL-58-N-8332. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.8.2017 ISSUED FROM THE UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.S4/400/2018/IT DATED 31.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2014 OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, HARYANA,CHANDIGARH, OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE HARYANATRANSPORT.GOV.IN //True copy// P.S. to Judge csl