Court refuses to entertain writ if alternate remedy available

Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court, in the matter of Tvl. Sri Maharaja Industries v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) [W.P Nos. 16075 of 2023], dismissed the writ petition, stating that if there is an alternative remedy available, the petitioner should pursue that remedy before resorting to a writ petition.

Facts:

Tvl. Sri Maharaja Industries, (“the Petitioner”) filed the writ before the Madras High Court contending that the Revenue department did not follow the principle of natural justice before passing the Orders namely, CST 706116/2008-09, CST 706116/2009-10, CST 706116/2010-11 and CST 706116/2011-12, respectively, dated December 02, 2022 (“the Impugned Orders”), did not considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the Petitioner and did not grant opportunity of personal hearing.

Issue:
Whether writ can be filed if alternate remedy is available?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 16075, 16077, 16080 and 16082 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.15499, 15500, 15501, 15502, 15506,15508, 15509 & 15511 of 2023 held as under:

• Observed that, the Revenue department issued notice and the Petitioner has also submitted reply and thereafter enquiry was completed.
• Noted that, the prayer of the Petitioner does not stand correct as the finding were recorded only after considering the material produced by the Petitioner.
• Further Noted that, even if the petitioner is aggrieved due to any omission committed on the part of the department, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders by way of filing appeal before the competent authority.
• Held that, the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity as per compliance of the principles of natural justice.
• The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST 706116/2008-09, CST 706116/2009-10, CST 706116/2010-11 and CST 706116/2011-12, respectively, dated 02.12.2022 and quash the same as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and authority of law.

2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that principle of natural justice was not followed before passing the impugned order and no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent before passing the impugned order did not consider the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the petitioner in support of his claim made before the forum.

4. In the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, it is seen that the notice has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry has been conducted. The request of the dealer is seen to be not capable for consideration and that finding is recorded after considering the materials produced by the petitioner.

5. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved due to any omission committed on the part of the respondent authority, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders by way of filing revision/ appeal before the competent authority.

6. I do not find that it is a fit case which should be considered for lack of opportunity in compliance of the principles of natural justic e. Sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner.

In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

*****

(Author can be reached at [email protected])