Ghousia Begum vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1153 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1153 Tel
Judgement Date : 14 March, 2022

Telangana High Court

Ghousia Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 14 March, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             WRIT PETITION No. 12793 of 2022
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to

Respondents 4 and 5 not to call the petitioners or their family

members to the police station and to refrain from abusing,

harassing and beating the petitioners and their family members.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner

and her late husband Sri Abdul Razak had established masalas

manufacturing industry at Ghatkesar. The 6th respondent

claimed that the husband of the petitioner had taken him in

adoption and dispossessed the petitioner from the huge property

and industry and taken over the same and left her in a

dilapidated house. It is stated that Respondents 6 and 7 started

harassing the 1st petitioner to vacate the said house also. The

grievance of the petitioners is that they gave the representation

dated 04.03.2022 to the 3rd respondent - Assistant

Commissioner of Police against Respondents 4 and 5 detailing

as to how they were abused and harassed by the police, but so

far, no action has been taken thereon.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

Sri K. Anantha Rao and learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Home Sri S. Rama Mohan Rao.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,

based on written instructions received from the 3rd respondent -

Assistant Commissioner of Police, submits that police are not

indulging in any activities or the harassment, as alleged. He

further submits that if the petitioners feel that the police have

been interfering with the civil disputes, they can file a private

complaint before the Magistrate.

5. In this context, it is apt to cite the precedents set

out by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. In

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition

Officer, Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East

Godavari District, A.P. and others1, on review of precedents

on scope of Article 226, a Larger Bench of this Court held that

'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'.

2005(3) ALD 233(LB)

6. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass

Agarwal2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"15. Thus, while it can be said that this 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 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)

7. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection

of Democratic Rights, in paragraph 70, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed as under:

" 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 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."

(2014) 1 SCC 603

8. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbanslal Sahnia v.

Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.3 held that:

" 7. 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 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."

9. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner complains

that police are harassing him, whereas the stand of the police is

that they are not calling the petitioners or their family members

to the police station. This is the disputed question of fact,

which this Court cannot adjudicate while exercising its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, in

view of the law laid down in Bhimidipati Annapoorna

Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir

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

others, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass

Agarwal and State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection

(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107