Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Dubey @ Satishchandra Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2014
W.P.3995/14
22/08/2014
Shri D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S.Rathore, P.L. for the respondents/State.
Heard.
This petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that although this order is revisable under the M.P.Land Revenue Code, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition may be directly entertained. He relied on (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) to submit that if principles of natural justice are violated, or fundamental rights of the citizen are infringed, despite availability of alternative remedy, petition can be directly entertained.
Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. The bone of contention of Shri Bansal is based on the alleged procedural flaw in the decision making process. The said flaw does not make the order without jurisdiction. No doubt that despite availability of alternative remedy, in certain circumstances, the writ petition can be entertained. However, this is a matter of discretion and not of compulsion. The Apex Court in U.P.State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 has opined that for entertaining the writ petition directly, one has to establish that if he is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause palpable W.P.3995/14 injustice to him. In addition, one has to establish that the order is passed by an authority who did not have jurisdiction to pass the order. Th Apex Court in U.P.State Spg. Co. Ltd.(supra) held as under:-
"Normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute."
In the present case, the petitioner has not satisfied the aforesaid two points. I am unable to hold that if petitioner avails the alternative remedy of appeal, it will cause any palpable injustice to him. Resultantly, this petition is not entertained. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appeal within 15 days from today along with stay application before the competent authority. If it is filed within the aforesaid time, it shall be dealt with on merits and the impediment of delay will not come in the way of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy of impugned order be returned to the petitioner on filing the photocopy of the same.
Sujoy Paul Judge vv