Ramachandran Nair & Deepak R v. The District Collector, Alappuzha; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur; The Tahsildar, Karthikappally; The Village Officer, Muthakulam; Sasidharan Pillai

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**RAMACHANDRAN NAIR**| |---|---| ||**AGED 63 YEARS**| ||**S/O KUTTAN PILLAI, DEEPA BHAVANAM,**| ||**CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH, ALAAPUZHA-**| ||**690 506.**| |**2**|**DEEPAK R,**| ||**AGED 31 YEARS**| ||**S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DEEPA BHAVANAM,**| ||**CHOOLATHERUVU P.O.MUTHUKULAM NORTH,**| ||**ALAAPUZHA-690 506.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| |---|---| ||**COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**CHENGANNUR, AALAPPUZHA-689 121.**| |**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR,**| ||**TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA**| ||**DISTRICT,**| ||**PIN-690 516.**| -2- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) |**4**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTHUKULAM, MUTHUKULAM (PO),**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.**| |**5**|**SASIDHARAN PILLAI,**| ||**INDIRALAYAM HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O.KATHIKAPPALLY**| ||**TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 516.**| **R1 TO R4 BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) ## **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 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Tahsildar to allow Ext.P3 application dated 24.02.2020 made by the 1[st] 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 1[st] respondent District Collector, against Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 and Ext.P8 is a copy of the stay petition. 2. 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 5[th] respondent is dispensed with. 3. Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2021 of the 2[nd] -4- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is under challenge in Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioners before the 1[st] respondent District Collector under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. 4. 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. 5. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of** -5- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) **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 -6- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) 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. 6. 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 2[nd] 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 1[st] respondent District Collector, and the petitioners have already filed Ext.P7 statutory revision before the said revisional authority. 7. Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners against Ext.P6 order is now pending consideration before the 1[st] respondent. Along with Ext.P7 revision petition, the petitioners have also moved Ext.P8 stay petition, which is also pending consideration. 8. The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition filed by the -7- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) petitioners are in order, the 1[st] respondent District Collector shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision, without any delay. 9. 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 1[st] respondent District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application for stay, with notice to the petitioners and also to the 5[th] 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 1[st] 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. Sd/- ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/19/2 -8- WP(C).No.4398 OF 2021(Y) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO 220 DATED 15.1.1957** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 161/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFFS COURT, HARIPAD** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING 345/2020 DATED 24.2.2020** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2021** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.1.2021 BEARING NO G83/2021** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2021** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.2.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT**