In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Wp(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No.16825 of 2019 PETITIONERS: 1GIRIJAVALLABHANAGED 54 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 2LATHA,W/O. GIRIJAVALLABHAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003. BY SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The 1[st] petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 30 cents of land in Re-survey No.343 of KolazhyVillage in Thrissur District, has filed this writ petitionalong with the 2[nd] petitioner, who is his wife, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writof certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 03.01.2019issued by the 2[nd] respondent District Collector inexercise of her powers under Section 13 of the KeralaConservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,whereby the petitioners have been asked to restorethe land in question to its original position andcultivate the same. The petitioners have also soughtfor a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st]respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5revision petition dated 16.02.2019, within a time limitto be fixed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersand also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The main relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated03.01.2019 of the 2[nd] respondent. The said order isone issued by the 2[nd] respondent in exercise of thepowers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservationof Paddy Land and Wetland Act, whereby thepetitioners have been asked to restore that propertyto its original position. Such an order passed by theDistrict Collector is revisable before the 1[st]respondent, in view of the provisions under Section28 of the said Act. 4. Invoking the provisions under Section 28 ofthe said Act, the petitioners have already filed Ext.P5revision petition dated 16.02.2019 before the 1[st]respondent, which is pending consideration.Therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke the writjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, challenging Ext.P4 order, on the grounds raised in this writ petition. 5. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603], theApex Court held that non-entertainment of a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiawhen an efficacious alternative remedy is available isa rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially arule of policy, convenience and discretion rather thana rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretionof the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, despite the existence ofalternative remedy. However, High Court must notinterfere if there is an adequate efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitioner and hehas approached the High Court without availing thesame, unless he has made out an exceptional casewarranting such interference or there exists sufficientground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226. 6. Since the petitioners have already movedExt.P5 revision petition before the 1[st] respondentchallenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 2[nd]respondent, it is for the 1[st] respondent to considerand pass appropriate orders on the that revisionpetition. 6. Since the petitioners have already movedExt.P5 revision petition before the 1[st] respondentchallenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 2[nd]respondent, it is for the 1[st] respondent to considerand pass appropriate orders on the that revisionpetition. 7. In such circumstances, this writ petition, filedon 19.06.2019, is disposed of by directing the 1[st]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orderson Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the petitionersagainst Ext.P4 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent,strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisjudgment, with notice to the petitioners and afteraffording them an opportunity of being heard. The 1[st] respondent shall consider the interimrelief sought for in Ext.P5 revision petition and passappropriate orders thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the same, with notice to the petitioners and affording them anopportunity of being heard. AV/21/6 Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DATED 12.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BANK PASSBOOK OF KERALA GRAMEEN BANK KOLAZHY BRANCH. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 12.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-30197/17 DATED 03.01.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 16.02.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.