Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Shrishail S/o Gangappa Bolannawar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging an endorsement dated 13-10-2022 issued by the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal (Respondent No.4). The endorsement, bearing No. BLH-BL-52-2022-23, was passed under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement and, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.2) to positively consider his application dated 18-05-2023. The respondents, represented by the State of Karnataka, the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar, and the Town Municipal Council, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, which he had not exhausted. The court held that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the petitioner must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory remedy. Since the petitioner failed to show any such circumstances, the court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed that if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider it on its merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged an endorsement issued by the Town Municipal Council under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, without availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 321 of the Act. The High Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, but the petitioner must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory remedy. Since the petitioner failed to show any such circumstances, the petition was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. (Paras 1-5) B) Municipal Law - Appeal - Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - The impugned endorsement dated 13-10-2022 was issued by the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Section 321 of the Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal against such orders. The court observed that the petitioner ought to have availed this remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 226. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 before the appropriate authority within four weeks from the date of the order. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider it on its merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.
Law Points
- Exhaustion of statutory remedy
- Alternative remedy not an absolute bar
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Section 321 Karnataka Municipalities Act
- 1964
