Telangana High Court
M.G. Ramudu vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.5370 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking any appropriate action including registering the cases against respondent No.5 and 6 basing on the complaints of the petitioner dated 06.01.2022 and 10.01.2022 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Sri K.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.01 guntas in Survey Nos.76/A/AA/3/5, situated at Lingampalli Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which he has purchased through registered sale deed dated 31.07.2021. He submits that his vendor has also delivered the vacant site and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner got mutated his name in the revenue records and was issued title deed and pattadar passbook. He submits that prior to his purchase, the Grampanchath, Lingampally used to grow the plants under Haritha Haram programme in the said land. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner made an application on 27.12.2021 to the Mandal Panchayat Officer, 2 Nawabpet as well as Mandal Development Officer, Nawabpet, requesting them to remove Haritha Haram Name board and other material and plants, as they are causing obstruction for the purpose of the fixing boundaries and also levelling the land. Pursuant to his application, all the items, which are lying in the land, have been removed by the authorities. He further submits that on 06.01.2022, when the petitioner visited his land, as he is residing at Mahammadabad Village and Mandal, respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the residents of Lingampally Village, high-handedly and illegally occupied his land and erected stones, kaddies and also a gate. Immediately, the petitioner raised objection with regard to the trespass and illegal encroachment, upon which respondent Nos.5 and 6 abused him in filthy and unparliamentary language touching his caste name and also threatened him that as to how dare to purchase their land and also warned him that they will kill him if he was seen again in the village. The petitioner made a written complaint on 06.01.2022 to respondent No.4. When there is no response, against on 10.01.2022 the petitioner made a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 requesting them to take necessary action. But, till date, for the reasons best known to them, no action has been taken by the official respondents against the unofficial 3 respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao 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.
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 fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has 1 2005(3) ALD 233(LB) 4 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 2 (2014) 1 SCC 603 5
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- 3
(2010) 3 SCC 571 4 (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107 6 registering the complaint, the remedy for the affected person is to file a private complaint.
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. 5
(1998) 8 SCC 1 7
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 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 7th June 2022 mar