Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
L. REMADEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16980 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.MOHANDAS, K.SUDHINKUMAR, SABU PULLAN, R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN, K.P.SATHEESAN
For the Respondents: RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
The High Court will generally refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has an effective and available statutory appeal remedy against the impugned order.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order issued by a District Educational Officer, alleging it contravened a prior Government directive and a family-based management agreement concerning an educational institution. The findings of the Court emphasize the exhaustion of statutory remedies prior to invoking the extraordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court framed the central issue as whether the existence of an alternative statutory appellate remedy precludes the Court from entertaining a petition under Article 226. The ratio decidendi is encapsulated in the principle that judicial discretion under Article 226 is usually not exercised when the petitioner has not exhausted all available statutory remedies, thereby directing parties to follow the prescribed departmental appeal processes. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against administrative order issued by district authority. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before judicial intervention. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P4 order issued by the District Educational Officer.
2. Petitioner alleges that Exhibit-P4 decision has been taken by the third respondent contrary to Exhibit-P2 order issued by the Government, as well as contrary to Exhibit-P3 decision taken by the Chamavila family regarding the management of Kottappuram High School, Paravoor, Kollam.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the impugned order can be challenged before the second respondent, and therefore, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be invoked.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of an appeal.
