Writ petitions cannot be entertained when an appealable order exists under the applicable statute, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"I. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3^rd respondent and set aside Exhibit P9 order;

II. to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2^nd respondent municipality and direct the officials under it to not demolish or take down any portion of the residence of the petitioner’s residence; III. to dispense with the filing of translated transcripts of the documents in Malayalam language produced along with, and marked as Exhibits in, the writ petition; and IV. pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The impugned order in this case is an order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994. Admittedly, it is an appealable order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, ‘Tribunal’). In such circumstances, this Court need not entertain this Writ Petition in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ]. This Court in the above decision observed like this:

“14. From the above authoritative judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, it is clear that, once the period prescribed in the statute for filing the appeal and the period which can be condoned as per the statute is over, a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained by the High Court. It amounts to invoking the power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India against statutory rules. That is not permissible. If the Rule's vires is challenged, that will be a different situation. But if, within the period of Limitation prescribed for challenging an order, a writ petition is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, instead of invoking the alternative remedy, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction if the order is inherently unsustainable, or if it is passed without jurisdiction or if it is passed violating the principles of natural justice. Even in such a situation, the invocation of power under Art.226 of the Constitution is the exception and availing the alternative remedy is the rule. But, if a writ petition in such a situation is entertained by the High Court, which was filed within the limitation period prescribed in the statute concerned and ultimately at the final hearing stage, this Court found that there is nothing to interfere and at that stage, the limitation period for availing the remedy is also over, whether this Court can relegate the party to avail the alternative remedy is the next question. In such situations, to do complete justice to the party, the dictum laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Atlantics Intelligence Ltd. (Supra) is to be followed. The Allahabad High Court observed that the principle of S.14 of the Limitation Act is a principle based on advancing the cause of justice, which would certainly apply to exclude time taken in prosecuting proceedings which are bona fide and with due diligence pursued, which ultimately end without a decision on the merits of the case. I am in perfect agreement with the above dictum laid down by the Allahabad High Court. Therefore, the High Court can invoke the principle in S.14 of the Limitation Act and relegate to avail the alternative remedy with a rider that the party approached the High Court within the period prescribed by the statute for availing the statutory remedy.”

3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 15.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:

“The learned Government Pleader appears for the

1^st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel