Jharkhand High Court
Bal Krishna Agarwal & Another vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 22 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 5586 of 2019
........
Bal Krishna Agarwal & Another .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratisuh Lala, Advocate.
For the Respondents/State : Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P.-VI.
........
06/22.07.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pratiush Lala
and learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Priyadarshi,
G.P.-VI.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
appellate court of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in HRC Appeal
No. 01/2019 has set aside the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Dhanbad in HRC Case
No. 04/2017 without even notice or hearing to the petitioners, who
are the landlord, as such, petitioners, being aggrieved of by the
violation of the principles of natural justice, have preferred this writ
petition, which is maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs.
the State of Bihar & Others passed in 2021 SCC Online SC 801.
Para-19 of the said judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
19. While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious
alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does
not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain
contingencies. This principle has been crystallized by this Court in
Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai
and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Recently, in Radha
Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors a two judge
Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part of (Justice DY
Chandrachud) has summarized the principles governing the exercise of
writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate
remedy. This Court has observed:
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs
can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High
Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court
of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an
appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be
entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by
law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes
the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort
must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking
the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High
Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition.
However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the
nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."
(emphasis supplied)
The principle of alternate remedies and its exceptions was also
reiterated recently in the decision in Assistant Commissioner of State
Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited. In State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja
Cement Ltd this Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable
before the High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the
scope of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:
"23. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement
of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing
authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do
not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be
entertained. 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. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday
Narain v. ITO [(1970) 2 SCC 355: AIR 1971 SC 33] that if the
High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of
alternative remedy and heard the parties on merits it would be
ordinarily unjustifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on
the ground of non-exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the
High Court finds that factual disputes are involved and it would
not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition."
Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. Priyadarshi,
G.P.-VI has submitted that State has filed counter-affidavit stating
that petitioners have alternative remedy of revision under Section 37
of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
2011, as such, the writ petition may be disposed of.
Considering such submissions, it appears that the officers are
not vigilant about the right of a person and thus, they are violating
the principles of natural justice.
Let notice be issued upon respondent no. 4, Md. Ainul Haque
& Sons, C/o Sifa Mobile Centre, Opposite J.D. Kumar Medical,
Bank More, P.O. - Dhanbad, P.S. - Bank More, District - Dhanbad,
respondent no. 5, Md. Shamim Akhtar, son of Late Md. Ainul Haque,
respondent no. 6, Md. Kalim Ansari, son of Late Md. Ainul Haque,
respondent no. 7, Md. Shakil Ahmed, son of Late Md. Ainul Haque
and respondent no. 8, Md. Sarfraz Ahmed, son of Late Md. Ainul
Haque, respondent nos. 5 to 8 are R/o Azad Nagar, P.O. + P.S. -
Bhuli, District - Dhanbad, under Speed Post, for which requisites
etc., must be filed by 29.07.2022.
Office to track the Speed Post delivery.
Put up this case after service of notice.
Office is directed to delete the name of learned counsels, Mr.
Rahul Kumar Gupta and Mrs. Neelam Tiwary by substituting the
name of learned counsel, Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P.-VI on behalf of
respondents in the cause list.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
