A1 Salama Eye Research Foundation vs. The Union Of INDIA - Kerala High Court, 04 January 2022

Heard together (2 matters)

WA NO. 3 OF 2022

WP(C) 17408/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943 WA NO. 3 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2021 IN WP(C) 17408/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/s A1 SALAMA EYE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, THEKKEKOOT BUILDINGS, PALAKKAD ROAD, MALAPPUAM-679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SAMSUDEEN.A. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON K.KRISHNA R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. 3 INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI-110 068. 4 BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, COIMBATORE-641 046, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 5 CENTRE FOR PARTICIPATORY AND ONLINE PROGRAMMES, SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, COIMBATORE- 641 046, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 6 THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, CR BUILDINGS, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV S.MANU WA NO. 3 OF 2022 -2- OTHER PRESENT: SC AMAL DARSHAN., CGC KRISHNA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 3 OF 2022 -3-

JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti,J. Writ petitioner is the appellant and filed W.P.(C) No.17408/2021 assailing Ext.P9 order of the 6th respondent, whereunder the 6th respondent determined the tax penalty etc payable by the petitioner. The petitioner without availing the remedy of statutory appeal filed the writ petition in this Court. Through the judgment in appeal, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The operative portion reads thus:

“ 6. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances arising in the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that none of the exceptions mentioned above is made out in the instant case. There was no violation of fundamental rights or violation of the principles of the natural justice nor was the order issued in excess of juri iction. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition merits dismissal solely on the ground of alternative remedy. Reserving the liberty of the writ petitioner to pursue its appellate remedy as provided under the statue, this writ petition stands dismissed.”

The reasons stated by petitioner for availing the writ remedy without recourse to statutory remedy, are not accepted by WA NO. 3 OF 2022 -4- the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded in the judgment in appeal. The appellant ought to work out the statutory remedy of appeal. Hence, we confirm the judgment in appeal, however, the dismissal of the writ petition or writ appeal shall not be understood as this Court has considered the merits of the case pleaded by the appellant. All the contentions are left open for consideration in the appeal that may be filed in this behalf. With the above observation, Writ Appeal stands dismissed. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS