CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2012 M/s Carol Info Services Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.This order shall dispose of four writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.22572, 22581, 22582 and 22599 of 2012 as identical issues are involved therein.
2. In CWP No.22572 of 2012, a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 31st August, 2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Revisional Authority-respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is against the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon and another versus East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1981]. 48 STC 23.(SC). It was urged that since the order passed by the Revisional Authority in the present case was in violation of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the remedy of appeal would not come in the way of the petitioner for approaching this Court.
3. This Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited versus The State CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) ::2:: of Haryana and others, 2012(2) 166 PLR 345.considering the question of entertaining writ petition where alternate statutory remedy was available, had in Paras 6 and 7 observed as under:-
“6. The following are the broad principles when a writ petition can be entertained without insisting for adopting statutory remedies:- (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
7. We are not inclined to entertain this petition against the assessment order as it does not fulfil any of the broad outlines noticed herein above. The Apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. versus State of Orissa, AIR 198.SC 60.observed as under:
11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-s. (1) of S. 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-s. (3) of S. 23 of the Act, an then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under S. 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) ::3:: mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is not well recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute only must be availed of. This rule was-stated with great clarity by Willes, J.in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. versus Hawkesford, (1859) 6 CBNS 33 at P. 356 in the following passage: “There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. *******But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it******* the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.”
. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville versus London Express Newspaper Ltd., 1919 AC 36.and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago versus Gordon Grant and Co., 1935 AC 53.and Secretary of State versus Mask and Co., AIR 194.PC 105...”
4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternate remedies available to it in accordance with law. The present petitions are disposed of accordingly. Needless to say the appellate authority shall examine the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied CWP No.22572 of 2012 (O & M) ::4:: upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner while adjudicating the appeals.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the limitation for filing the appeal is expiring today and, therefore the said period may be extended till Monday i.e. 19.11.2012.
6. Under the facts and circumstances, it is directed that in case the appeal is filed on or before 19.11.2012, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE November 16, 2012 Sukhpreet