Srinivasan Parthiban vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4852 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   WRIT PETITION No. 36640 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

" ... to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of official respondents in not registering the complaint dt.24.08.2022 filed by petitioner on the file of JAWAHARNAGAR POLICE STATION against unofficial respondents as well as not recovering the vehicle of petitioner bearing No.TS08GV5852 Maruti Vitara Brezza - Silver colour as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the official respondent to immediately act upon the complaint of petitioner ..."

2. Sri P.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the

petitioner is the absolute owner of vehicle bearing No.TS08GV5852, which

was purchased by him in the year 2020 by hypothecating the same with

M/s.Axis Bank Limited, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. He submits that the

petitioner and the unofficial respondents had business transactions and the

unofficial respondents have paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs in all by account

transfer as advance for expenses for processing loan. The unofficial

respondents herein along with their henchmen had illegally taken the said car

into their custody by trespassing into the office of the petitioner. The

petitioner went to respondent police to register F.I.R against the unofficial

respondents, but they refused to register the complaint. It is stated that the

duty of the police officer is to register a case and carry out proper

investigation into the matter and ascertain the cause behind the complaint.

Learned counsel submits that the inaction of the respondent police is highly

arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by

filing a Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Sri A. Manoj

Kumar submits that he will get instructions in this matter and file a detailed

counter.

4. 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,

5. 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

2005(3) ALD 233(LB)

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)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal2

6. 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 Rights3

(2014) 1 SCC 603

(2010) 3 SCC 571

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.

Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.4

8. 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.

(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107

9. 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

Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai5, 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.

10. 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

(1998) 8 SCC 1

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 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.

11. 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.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand automatically

closed.

__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J September 23, 2022

mar