2017 (5) TMI 337 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - alternative remedy - non-consideration of the series of authorities cited before the said respondent no.2 by Learned Advocate for the petitioners in the proceeding under Section 5(3) of the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001 - power yo issue writs - Held that - the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and the said power is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The law is well-settled that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in spite of having alternative remedy when the principle of natural justice is violated or when the order is passed without jurisdiction or the vires of any statute is under challenge or prayer is made for enforcement of any Fundamental Right. The Single Bench of the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction in relation to an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise or by the Commissioner of Customs, in spite of having alternative remedy of preferring appeal before CESTAT when principles of natural justice are violated or when the order has been passed without jurisdiction. The natural corollary is that the present writ application is not maintainable before the Single Bench of the High Court - The writ application is, thus, dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in the presence of an alternative remedy.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in the presence of an alternative remedy:
The petitioners challenged the order dated November 9, 2016, passed by the Deputy Controller, Kolkata Tikha Tenancy, rejecting their claim as tikha tenants under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Tikha Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001. The petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the principles of natural justice were violated. The respondents contended that the petitioners should seek remedy before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, as the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001 is a specified Act under the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997. The Court noted that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary and not limited by other constitutional provisions. However, the High Court usually refrains from exercising this power if an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, except in cases of violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Controller did not consider the series of authorities cited by their counsel, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged that the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy if there was a violation of natural justice. However, the Court emphasized that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over matters under the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised by a Division Bench, not a Single Bench, as per the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997.

3. Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997:
The Court highlighted that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over orders made by any authority under a specified Act, including the Tikha Tenancy Act of 2001. The Tribunal was established under Article 323B of the Constitution for adjudicating disputes related to land reforms and tenancy. Sections 7 and 8 of the Tenancy Tribunal Act of 1997 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court's Single Bench in such matters, reserving it for a Division Bench. The Court referred to previous judgments, including "L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India" and "Eastern Chemical Industries v. Fona Rubber Pvt. Ltd.," which reinforced the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the exclusion of the Single Bench's jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that it could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case, as the Tenancy Tribunal has the authority to address the petitioners' grievances. The writ application was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to seek remedy before the Tenancy Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and the jurisdictional boundaries established by the relevant Acts.

← Previous Next →