Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4769
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
VINESH V.T – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP(C)/27126/2021
N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.), S.SUJIN
Parties must seek remedies through appropriate statutory forums rather than writ petitions when disputes are covered under specific acts.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act - Section 124 - Court ruled that disputes must be resolved through statutory remedies rather than a writ under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for refunding amounts without deduction as per an agreement with the Cochin Devaswom Board, after issues arose about rent during specific dates.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution given the existing dispute and statutory remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: Disputes arising from agreements between parties governed under specific statutes should be resolved in accordance with those laws instead of through writ petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amounts received by the respondents under different heads pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement dated 23.09.2015, without deducting the rent for the period from 17.03.2020 till July 2020 as demanded in Ext.P5 letter dated 16.09.2020.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner along with his partners have taken six rooms in the shopping complex of the Cochin Devaswom Board at Pallithana on the strength of an agreement dated 23.09.2015. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a lawyer notice dated 22.10.2020 issued to the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 .
3. On 30.11.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to get instructions.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board.
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the aforesaid relief in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. There are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner has already issued Ext.P6 lawyer notice to the 1st respondent Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board under Section 124 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. It is for the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the statute, for redressal of his grievance. Such disputes cannot be decided in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable for the aforesaid reason; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take further course in terms of Ext.P6 lawyer notice.
The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum, at appropriate stage.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED DATED 23.9.2015 BY BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT BOARD AND THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS PARTNERS IN BUSINESS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ASSURANCE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 23.9.2015 TO THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
17.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT BOARD.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
16.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
22.10.2020.
