COMMON ORDER:

All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the non-registration of criminal complaints filed by them before various police stations, under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

2. Aggrieved by the refusal/inaction of the police officials in registration of their complaints, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for directions to the respective Station House Officers to register the complaints filed by the petitioners.

3. In all these cases, the learned Government Pleader for Home, relying upon the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and the Judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.11.2020 in W.P.No.14324 of 2020 and batch, contends that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In both the Judgments, the learned Single Judges, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.1, Sudhir Bhaskarrao MANU/SC/8179/2007 = (2008) 2 SCC 409 Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage2 and M.Subramaniam & Another v S. Janaki & Another3, had held that the remedy available to the petitioner, where police do not register a complaint, is to approach the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure only.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the said Judgments require to be reconsidered on the following grounds:

A) The refusal/inaction in registration of complaints of the petitioners by the respective Station House Officers is a case of non performance of duty affecting the rights of the petitioners. In such a situation, the petitioners are entitled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B) Judicial Review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. As such a Petition, under Article 226, for judicial review of executive inaction cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

S.R. Bommai and others vs.

Union of India (UOI) and Others: ((1994) 3 SCC 1)

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. vs.

State of Tamil Nadu and others: ((2007) 2 SCC 1)

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. vs.

State of Tamil Nadu and others ((2007) 2 SCC 1)

Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability and others vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others ((1991) 4 SCC 699)

Madras Bar Association vs.

Union of India (UOI) ((2014) 10 SCC 1)

2

MANU/SC/1328/2010 = (2016) 6 SCC 277

MANU/SC/0348/2020 = 2020 ( 1 ) ALT (Crl.) 443 (A.P.)

Muthineni Krishna Rao and others vs. Union of India and others (1998 SCC Online AP 582);

(1998) 5 ALT 772 (DB);

(1998) 6 ALD 378)

L.Chandra Kumar vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others ((1997) 3 SCC 261)

Khasim Bee vs. The State Election Commissioner and others (AIR 1996 AP 324;

1996 (1) ALT 76;

1996(2) ALD 106)

Minerva Mills Limited and others vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others ((1980) 3 SCC 625)

S.P.Sampath Kumar and others vs.

Union of India (UOI) and others ((1987) 1 SCC 124) C) It cannot be said that a Writ Petition is not maintainable on account of the availability of an effective alternative remedy. It is only by an exercise of self restraint on the part of the Court that petitioners may be directed to avail any effective alternative remedy that is available.

(2004) 3 SCC 553 - ABL International Limited and others vs. Export Credit guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others (18.12.2003-SC).

AIR 2005 AP 365 - Bhamidipati Annapoorna Bhavani vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Reservoir Project and others. (1998) 8 SCC 1 - Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others.

(2003) 2 SCC 107 - Harbanslal Sahnia and others vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others.

(2012) 11 SCC 651 - Union of India (UOI) and others vs.

Guwahati Carbon Limited D) In the event of a remedy being available under the Constitution and an alternative remedy being available under the law passed by a legislature, the provisions o