01Facts
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 1 September 2020 and sought restoration of the phodi approval made in 1981.
p. 8The Court noted that the writ petition was filed after a lapse of six years from the impugned order.
p. 8 · p. 9 · ¶ 2The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
p. 8The State appeared through the Additional Government Advocate.
p. 9 · ¶ 102Issues
i.Whether the Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the Deputy Commissioner’s order when the challenge was brought after a six-year delay.
p. 9 · ¶ 2, 4ii.Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent authority.
p. 9 · ¶ 403Law Applied
The Court applied the discretionary nature of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the principle that a writ petition may be declined where an efficacious alternative remedy is available.
p. 8 · p. 9 · ¶ 2, 4It also considered the six-year delay in challenging the impugned order.
p. 9 · ¶ 2, 404Reasoning
The Court noted both that the impugned order had been challenged after six years and that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent authority.
p. 9 · ¶ 2, 4On those grounds, it concluded that interference in the writ petition was not warranted; it did not determine the merits of the challenge to the order or the phodi approval.
p. 9 · ¶ 4 · p. 10 · ¶ 505Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition.
p. 10 · ¶ 5The Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available before the competent authority in accordance with law.
p. 10 · ¶ 5Original Court PDF
SHRI HARI BEERENDRA HEGGADE C BvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
