AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
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 2nd 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 1st 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.
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 5th respondent is dispensed with.
Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 of the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is under challenge in Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the
petitioners before the 1st respondent District Collector under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules.
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.
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 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.
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 2nd
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 1st respondent District Collector, and the petitioners have
already filed Ext.P7 statutory revision before the said revisional authority.
Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners against Ext.P6 order is now pending consideration before the 1st respondent. Along with Ext.P7 revision
petition, the petitioners have also moved Ext.P8 stay petition, which is also pending consideration.
The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition filed by the petitioners are in order, the 1st respondent
District Collector shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision, without any delay.
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 5th 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.