Ramachandran Nair vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 6021 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                  WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONERS:

     1       RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
             AGED 63 YEARS
             S/O KUTTAN PILLAI, DEEPA BHAVANAM,
             CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAAPUZHA-
             690 506.

     2       DEEPAK R,
             AGED 31 YEARS
             S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DEEPA BHAVANAM,
             CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH,
             ALAAPUZHA-690 506.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
             SRI.R.REJI
             SMT.THARA THAMBAN
             SRI.B.BIPIN
             SRI.ARUN BOSE

RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.

     2       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             CHENGANNUR, AALAPPUZHA-689 121.

     3       THE TAHSILDAR,
             TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA
             DISTRICT,
             PIN-690 516.
                               -2-
WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

       4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTHUKULAM, MUTHUKULAM (PO),
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.

       5      SASIDHARAN PILLAI,
              INDIRALAYAM HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O.KATHIKAPPALLY
              TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.


              R1 TO R4 BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT
              PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -3-
WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to

quash Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 issued by the 2 nd

respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur. The

petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding the 3rd respondent Tahsildar to allow Ext.P3

application dated 24.02.2020 made by the 1 st petitioner for

effecting mutation of the property having an extent of 3½

cents in Re.Sy.No.126/4 of Muthukulam Village. The document

marked as Ext.P7 is a copy of the revision petition filed by the

petitioner under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules,

1966 before the 1st respondent District Collector, against

Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 and Ext.P8 is a copy of the

stay petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of relief proposed

to be granted, service on notice on the 5 th respondent is

dispensed with.

3. Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 of the 2 nd

WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is under challenge in

Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioners before the 1 st

respondent District Collector under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer

of Registry Rules.

4. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil

Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held that

non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy

is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is

essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather

than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of

the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative

remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an

adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the

petitioner and he has approached the High Court without

availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional

case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient

ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226.

5. In Authorised Officer, State Bank of

WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[(2018) 3 SCC 85] the Apex

Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has

to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in

accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be

entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available,

except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as

observed in Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra), i.e.,

where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance

with the provisions of the enactment in question or in

defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure,

or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed,

or when an order has been passed in total violation of the

principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid

down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes

[AIR 1964 SC 1419] and Titaghur Paper Mills Company

Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433] the Apex

Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative

remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute

WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

under which the action complained of contains a mechanism

for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum

is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition

should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

6. In view of the law laid down in the decisions

referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that no

interference is warranted on Ext.P6 order of the 2 nd

respondent, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the grounds raised

in this writ petition, when a statutory forum is created under

Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, namely, the 1 st

respondent District Collector, and the petitioners have already

filed Ext.P7 statutory revision before the said revisional

authority.

7. Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners against

Ext.P6 order is now pending consideration before the 1 st

respondent. Along with Ext.P7 revision petition, the

petitioners have also moved Ext.P8 stay petition, which is also

pending consideration.

8. The learned Government Pleader would submit that

if Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition filed by the

WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

petitioners are in order, the 1 st respondent District Collector

shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision,

without any delay.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that consideration of Exts.P7 and P8 may be with

notice to the petitioners.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by

directing the 1st respondent District Collector to consider and

pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application for stay, with

notice to the petitioners and also to the 5 th respondent and

after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of ten

days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P7

revision petition filed by the petitioners and take an

appropriate decision thereon, with notice to both parties,

within a further period of two months.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/19/2

WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING 345/2020 DATED 24.2.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2021

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2021 BEARING NO G83/2021

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2021

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.2.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT