A party cannot revert to statutory remedies after exhausting judicial options without proper justification.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The application seeking restoration of an appeal, was dismissed by the court, against which this appeal by the petitioner.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, challenging the order of the District Collector directing seizure of the appellant’s vehicle. 4. On 07.07.2023, the counsel for the appellant reported ‘no instructions’ and submitted that there is no objection in the appeal being dismissed for default.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A.No.8 of 2023 seeking restoration of the appeal.

5. Challenging the order of the District Collector, the appellant had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21515 of 2020. This Court, after exhaustive consideration of the issue on its merits, dismissed the writ petition as per the judgment dated 10.11.2020.

6. Thereafter, on 29.12.2020, the appellant preferred C.M.A.No.4 of 2021 before the District Court, challenging the order of the District Collector, in the statutory appeal provided under Section 21 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act . The factum of having invited a judgment from this Court in the writ petition, was not disclosed.

7. After preferring C.M.A.No.4 of 2021 , the appellant filed W.A. No.392 of 2021 challenging the judgment in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of the Division Bench. The writ appeal was filed without disclosing about the filing of the CMA. The Division Bench, as per judgment dated 17.03.2021, dismissed the appeal with costs. After almost two and half years, on 07.07.2023, the CMA was dismissed on the submission of the counsel as noted supra.

8. Having had given up the statutory remedy of appeal and having chosen to agitate his grievance before this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and having invited an adverse judgment on the merits, the appellant cannot be permitted to fall back upon the statutory remedy. This is nothing short of ‘forum shopping’.

9. Further, the appeal was dismissed on the submission of the counsel reporting no instructions. However, the affidavit filed in support of the application, a copy of which was made available to us by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not offer any explanation for such incident. Therefore, no sufficient cause is shown for the non-appearance of the appellant.

10. Considering the entire circumstances, we find that the court was justified in having declined to restore the CMA. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the Court.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-