IMPORTANT POINTS
A party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold” and “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate.” Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed against judgment dated 17.06.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 10542 of 2020 by which, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition as under:

“............

8. I have considered the contentions advanced. Section 144 Cr.P.C. specifically states that no order under the section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof. However, the proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 144 Cr.P.C. states that if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or an affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by the Magistrate under that Section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have expired. Sub-Section (6) of Section 144 Cr.P.C. states that the State Government may, either on its motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4). Sub-Section (7) of Section 144 states that where an application made under sub-section (5), or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

9. It is, therefore, clear that even in a case where the period of operation of the order is extended by the State Government as is done in the present case, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the same, have the remedy of approaching the State Government with an application for rescinding the same. The petitioners are entitled to a notice and hearing and the State Government is duty bound to pass a reasoned order.

10. In the instant case, I notice that Exhibit P1 order itself refers to violent protest by the residents of the locality. It also states that the petition before the National Green Tribunal seeking cancellation of environment clearance of the project had been dismissed and the order had been affirmed by the Apex Court as well. It is stated that it was in view of the violent protests which occurred in the locality that an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had to be issued. Exhibit P1 is a speaking order. Exhibit P2 is only an order passed under the proviso to Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. It refers to Exhibit P1 and a report dated 18.1.2020 of the District Collector, Ernakulam. The decision to extend the prohibitory orders has apparently been taken considering the report of the District Magistrate. In view of the fact that the petitioners have the efficacious remedy of approaching the Government, pointing out their grievances against Exhibit P2, I am of the opinion that it would not be justifiable for this Court to consider the legality or otherwise of Exhibit P2 order in a writ petition at this stage. The contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the difficulties faced by them by the extension of the prohibitory orders as well as the violation of their rights are matters which can be raised appropriately by the petitioners before the Government as provided under the statute itself.

11. In the above view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners are free to take up the matter before the Government by filing an application as provided under sub-section 6 of Section 144 Cr.P.C. If they do so, the Government shall consider their representations and pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioners or their representatives by any convenient means, including video conferencing.”

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:-

Appellants/writ petitioners are fishermen by occupation. They reside at Puthuvype, which forms