Telangana High Court
Preet Kumar Agarwal vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20104 of 2024
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri Preet Kumar Agarwal, petitioner is present in person. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for respondent No.1 and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, appears for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. The petitioner submits that the main ground of attack to the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 is that although show cause notices were issued to him on correct address, he did not receive the notices of personal hearing. The impugned order dated 13.02.2023 was also never served on him. When he preferred an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, in order to gather the information about the further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices, the impugned order was provided to him by the Department by communication dated 10.01.2024. He fairly submits that although there exists a statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition may be entertained because of violation of principles of natural justice.
3. The other side has opposed the prayer.
2
4. No doubt, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition can be entertained for certain reasons, including violation of principles of natural justice in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1. However, the judgment rendered in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was again considered by the Apex Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another 2 and it was opined as under:-
"17. ...But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."
5. In the instant case, no jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order is pointed out. Only flaw pointed out is alleged violation of principles of natural justice. It is also not pointed out as to what palpable injustice would be caused to the petitioner if he is relegated to avail the aforesaid remedy.
6. The Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and 1 (1998) 8 SCC 1 2 (2005) 8 SCC 264 3 Others 3 disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Apex Court opined as under:
"15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In this view of the matter and in view of availability of statutory alternative remedy, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition and deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. The petitioner can appraise the appellate authority that he came to know about the impugned 3 (2024) 4 S.C.R. 541 4 order only on 10.01.2024 and pray for condonation of delay. In addition, the time consumed before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation by the appellate authority.
8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ Sujoy Paul, J _______________________________ Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J Date: 30.07.2024 Myk/Tsr