The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition when the statutory period for appeal has expired, emphasizing the importance of availing alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT

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

"i) Issue a writ of Certiorari and other appropriate writ or directions to call for the records leading upto Exhibit P9 and P11 and quash the same.

ii) Issue such other order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice."

[SIC]

2. The impugned order in this case is Ext.P11.

Admittedly, it is an appealable order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short ‘tribunal’).

3. If that is the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 05.03.2019, this Court passed the following order:

“Learned Senior Government Pleader takes notice on admission for 1^st respondent.

Learned Standing Counsel takes notice on admission for the 2^nd respondent Municipality. Issue urgent notice on admission by special messenger to 3^rd respondent returnable by 12.03.2019.

List on 12.03.2019.

The status quo as on today in respect of the building referred to in Exts.P9 and P11 shall be maintained till then.”

The same is regularly extended.

4. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be allowed to file appropriate appeal before the tribunal in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Minicipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ]. This Court considered the matter in detail in the above judgment. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained by the High Court. It amounts to invoking the power under Article 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 Article 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 Article 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 Section 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 of the 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.

15. In this case, the order passed under Section 406 (3) was on 08.08.2022. The petitio