Regional Transport Authority Is Revisable Beforethe State Transport Appellate Tribunal Undersection 90 Of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3.In Commissioner Of Inc v. Chhabil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 28TH BHADRA, 1940WP(C).No. 15792 of 2018 PETITIONER: SHIHABUDDENNOUFAL MANZIL, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM - 691 001.KOLLAM - 691 001. 2THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONTRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 965 001.TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 965 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. OTHER PRESENT: SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON19.09.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).15849/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an existing operatoron the route Kombettimala-Madathara, covered bystate carriage bearing Registration No.KL-02/AW7062 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated29.12.2017, issued by the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority and a writ of mandamuscommanding the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Ext.P1 decision and pass necessary orders at theearliest. 2.Ext.P1 order of the 1[st]respondent Regional Transport Authority is revisable beforethe State Transport Appellate Tribunal underSection 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3.In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603], the Apex Courtreiterated that, non-entertainment of a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy isavailable is a rule of self-imposed limitation. Itis essentially a rule of policy, convenience anddiscretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly,it is within the discretion of the High Court togrant relief under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, despite the existence of alternativeremedy. However, High Court must not interfere ifthere is an adequate efficacious alternativeremedy available to the petitioner and he hasapproached the High Court without availing thesame, unless he has made out an exceptional casewarranting such interference or there existssufficient ground to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226. 4.In Pavithran V. State of Kerala (2009 (4)KHC 4), a Full Bench of this Court held that,whenever an adverse order is passed against aperson, unless the same is challenged before theappropriate forum, within the prescribed time limit, the said order will become final. 5.In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, it is for thepetitioner to challenge Ext.P1 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by filing a revision under Section 90 of the Motor VehiclesAct. Without prejudice to the aforesaid right ofthe petitioner, this writ petition filed on10.05.2018 is dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2017. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR