9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that against the order impugned, remedy has been provided under the statute itself by making a representation under the provisions of section 13-A (6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act"), and therefore, this Court should not entertain the writ petition. 5.. A Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Raman Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 192, held that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self contained code and itself provides for appealable/revisable forum, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters relating to its provision. 6.. Similar view has been reiterated in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura (1999) 1 SCC 472 and Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 3 SCC 5. 7.. In C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 425 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 609 and H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer Cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath Sons [1990] 77 STC 1; (1992) (Supp.) 2 SCC 312, the honourable apex Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elegated to the appellate forum. 12.. In Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh (1999) 1 SCC 209, the honourable apex Court has held that if the statute itself provides for a remedy of revision, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 13.. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan 2001 AIR SCW 2993, the honourable Supreme Court while considering the issue of alternative remedy observed as under: "The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive remedy. The court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of fundamental principles of justice. Therefore, in a proper case, powers of writ can be exercised, but should not be exercised generally where other adequate legal remedy is available though it may not be, per se, a bar to issue a writ of prerogative. The apex Court held that the remedy, being discretionary, cannot be asked as a matter of right, even if the order is a nullity, on the ground that it was passed by disregarding the rules of natural justice. The Court held as under: ".........save in exceptional cases, the courts will not interfere under article 226 until all normal remedies available to a petitioner have been exhausted. The normal remedies in a case of this kind are appeal and revision. It is true that on a matter of jurisdiction or on a question that goes to the root of the case, the High Courts can entertain a petition at an earlier stage but they are not bound to do so and a petition would not be thrown out because the petitioner had done that which the courts usually direct him to do, namely, to exhaust his normal remedies b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself of such remedies, one or the other before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy." 23.. Similar view has been reiterated in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant (1995) 5 SCC 75, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6 SCC 634, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509, GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC); (2003) 1 SCC 72 and Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 484. 24.. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal AIR 1999 SC 1786 while dealing with a similar issue the honourable apex Court has held as under: "It is true that the powers conferred upon the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution are discretionary in nature which can be invoked for the enforcement of any fundamental right or legal right.......... The Constitutional Court should insist upon the party to avail of the same instead of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. This does not however debar the Court from granting the appropriate relief to a citizen under peculiar and special facts notwithstanding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
