Kommu Odelu vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3761 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

              WRIT PETITION No. 5220 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of

the respondents in registering the crime on the complaint of the

petitioner dated 26.12.2021 against the offenders till date.

2. Sri Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner claims that the land in an

extent of Acs.3.22 guntas situated in Survey No. 1109 of

Raghavapur Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Mancherial District is

their ancestral property. It is stated that one Sri Kommu

Komaraiah taking advantage of similarity in the names and in

collusion with the vendors whose names are adverted to in the

complaint in detail, have created sada sale deeds and obtained

pattadar passbooks and title deeds pertaining to the schedule

land. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner went to

the police station to give compliant, the 4th respondent without

hearing the case, refused to register the complaint. Hence, the

petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home Sri A. Monoj Kumar.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

respondent police did not receive the complaint of the petitioner

dated 26.12.2021.

5. Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenever

a person complains of violation of his fundamental right or

statutory right, one of the self imposed restraint is when there is

statutorily engrafted adequate and efficacious alternative

remedy available to such person to redress his grievance the

court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the party to

avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court.

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir

Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, A.P. and others1,

6. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the

rule of alternative remedy 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repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of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, the proposition laid down in

Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419] , Titaghur Paper

2005(3) ALD 233(LB)

Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa,

(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar

judgments that the 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 has been taken itself contains a

mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field.

Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for

redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained

ignoring the statutory dispensation." (emphasis supplied)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal2

7. Despite wide powers conferred by Article 226 of the

Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in

mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these

constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under

the said articles requires great caution in its exercise.

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights

8. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the

remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to

the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the

appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that

the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an

(2014) 1 SCC 603

alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of

compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the

alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ

jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ

petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii)

where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii)

where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction

or the vires of an Act and is challenged.

Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.3

9. Generally, this Court is not entertaining the Writ

Petitions filed questioning the registration or non-registration of

the complaint / FIR, as, as rightly pointed out by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition No. 38397 of 2019 and batch, dated

08.03.2019 has categorically observed that in the case of non-

registering the complaint, the remedy for the affected person is

to file a private complaint.

10. The writ remedy is no doubt an extraordinary

remedy and in every case just because a case is made out on

action / inaction of an authority vested with power, the Writ

court will not entertain the writ petition and the affected party

has to avail the remedy available under law. In Whirlpool

(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107

Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai4, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed that under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the High Court having regard to the facts and

circumstances has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a

writ petition but the High Court has imposed certain restrictions

one of which is that if an effective alternative remedy is

available, the High court would not normally exercise the

jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently

held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three

contingencies; namely where the writ petition has been filed for

the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where

there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or

where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction

or the vires of an Act is challenged.

11. In the light of the law laid down by this Court and

the Apex Court referred to supra, when there is a statutorily-

engrafted adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available

to the person, who complains, to redress his grievance, the

Court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the party to

avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court. In this case, the effective alternative remedy

available to the petitioner is to file a private complaint under

(1998) 8 SCC 1

Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is an effective alternative remedy,

but not a Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to entertain this

Writ Petition.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of giving

liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to

him under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

-----------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 18th July 2022

ksld