Kirankumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 147 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER :

             KIRANKUMAR,AGED 34 YEARS
             S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, VATTEKKATT VALAPPIL HOUSE,
             P.O, AVANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680541.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
             SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ
             SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI
             SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.
             SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.

RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND
             COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PALAYAM P.O, PIN - 695001.

     2       THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND
             COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR,
             UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
             PALAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
             - 695033,

     3       THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
             CENTRE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU P.O,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.

             R BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was allotted a plot having an extent

of 25 cents in Sy.No.366/2 of Puthussery Central Village, in

the New Industrial Development Area, Kanjikode on the

strength of Ext.P1 allotment letter dated 25.01.2018 issued by

the 3rd respondent General Manager, District Industries

Centre, Palakkad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226

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

quash Ext.P15 proceedings dated 18.12.2020 issued by the 3 rd

respondent, ordering resumption of the said land. The

petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent Director of Industries and

Commerce to consider Ext.P16 appeal and pass appropriate

orders.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. 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

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

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.

4. In Authorised Officer, State Bank of

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

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

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 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.

5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P15 order of resumption,

the petitioner has already moved a statutory appeal before

the 2nd respondent Director of Industries and Commerce,

which is pending consideration. In view of the statutory

remedy of appeal available against Ext.P15 order, the

petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to

challenge that order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that Ext.P16 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P15

order is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent

appellate authority. During the pendency of that appeal, steps

are being taken to implement Ext.P15 order.

7. The learned Government Pleader would submit

that, if Ext.P16 appeal filed by the petitioner is in order and

the same is still pending consideration, the 2 nd respondent

shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon,

with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an

opportunity of being heard. If any application for interim relief

is filed, that application shall also be considered by the 2 nd

respondent.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the

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

by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P16 appeal filed by the petitioner

against Ext.P15 order dated 18.12.2020 of the 3 rd respondent,

if that appeal is in order and the same is still pending

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

consideration, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an

opportunity of being heard.

9. In case, the petitioner files an application in

Ext.P16 appeal seeking interim relief against Ext.P15, within

one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and

pass appropriate orders, within a period of one week from the

date of receipt of such application.

Legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are

left open to be raised before the 2 nd respondent, at

appropriate stage.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

AV/5/1

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE CUM LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P3 LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 19.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 05.05.2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 13.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P9 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2020.

WP(C).No.142 OF 2021(P)

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P11 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2020

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P13 LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.I-3/1086/ 2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P15 ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2020.