IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court has a self-imposed restriction to not entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, particularly when the statutory appeal is barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petition takes exception to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Miraj, in Externment Case (Mag/Extns/ Sr. No.23/2022 dtd. 21/12/2022, externing the petitioner for a period of one year from district Sangli and Kolhapur from the date when he removes himself from those areas, in the exercise of power under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

2. On 26/8/2022, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation as to why the petitioner shall not be externed from districts Sangli, Kolhapur, Satara and Solapur. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice pointing out that he has not committed any Act which would affect public peace or tranquility. The offences referred to in the notice are pending. The petitioner has not been convicted for any offence. Respondent No.3, by the impugned order dtd. 21/12/2022, externed the petitioner for a period of one year in the exercise of power under Sec. 56(1)(a)(b) of the said Act.

3. The petitioner had the remedy of statutory appeal. However, the petitioner did not file a statutory appeal within the prescribed time. The appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, challenging the order passed by the first authority.

4. The question, therefore, arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the case, this court can entertain the present petition when the petitioner failed to invoke statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed time.

5. It is well settled that the High Court has a self-imposed restriction refusing to entertain a writ petition in the categories listed as follows:

<WXY>(i) Adequate alternative statutory remedy is provided under a statute; (ii) Unexplained delay/laches in approaching the court; (iii) Petitioner not coming with clean hands; (iv) Interest of justice is against the grant of relief;

(v) When disputed questions of facts are raised, and the proper remedy is to avail remedy of suit or tribunal which can take evidence to decide the question of facts; (vi) Where the grant of the writ would be futile;

(vii) However, when it is shown with the error touching jurisdiction is so patent and loud that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity which could not be cured in appeal.</WXY>

6. The issue involved concerning the power of this court to entertain writs under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation provided under the statute is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited in Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020. The Apex Court, in paragraph 11, has held that even though the High Court can entertain a petition against any order/direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved persons could have availed an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. It is held that the constitutional court would take note of legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not mean that it can disregard substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through mechanisms prescribed by the statute.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the gist of statements of secret witnesses was not provided to the petitioner. He submitted that the order of respondent No.3 was excessive. He submitted that there was no live link between the action initiated and the offences registered against the petitioner. Extraneous material is taken into consideration. H