Order v. Income-Tax Investigation

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5590 of 2007 22.3.2007 Between: Akarapu Narsimha Swamy, S/o.Akarapu Kumaraswamy AND … Petitioner The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOWRIT PETITION No.5590 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly owner of a house bearing Nos.19-33 &19-34 situated on the main road at Nagarkurnool town. When thefourth respondent, immediate neighbour of petitioner, commencedconstruction and dug a large pit in premises bearing Nos.19-36 & 19-37 for construction of cellar, the petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.125of 2006 against fourth respondent on the file of the Court of the JuniorCivil Judge, Nagarkurnool. In the said suit, he also filed an applicationbeing I.A.No.312 of 2006 for ad interim injunction and the learnedJunior Civil Judge granted order of status quo. The petitioner thenapproached the first respondent, who by an order dated 18.10.2006allegedly directed the Panchayat Secretary to stop further constructionby fourth respondent. He alleges that in spite of the same, respondentNo.3, who is in collusion with the fourth respondent, did not take anyaction to stop illegal and irregular construction by the fourthrespondent. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking adirection to third respondent to stop further construction by fourthrespondent. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, this Court is of consideredopinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is well settled thatthe remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot beavailed simultaneously along with alternative remedy. A referencemay be made to K.S.Rashid & Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission[[1]], Carl Still G.m.b.H. v. State of Bihar[[2]]and BombayMetropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd.[[3]]. When the petitioner has already obtained orderof status quo in an interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIXRules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) nothingprevents him to file contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2Aof CPC against the fourth respondent. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to do so. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ March 22, 2007. (V.V.S.RAO, J)YS [1]AIR 1954 SC 207[2]AIR 1961 SC 1615[3](1995) 1 SCC 642