ivil Appeal No 3284 of 1992 From the Judgement and Order dated 1821992 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 2259 of 1991
RK Garg KL Vohra Rajeev Sharma and DK Garg for the Appellants
Arun Jaitley VB Saharya Ashok Bhan and BK Prasad for the Respondents
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SHARMAJ Heard the learned counsel for the parties
Special leave is granted
The respondents in this appeal have successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of a private right to immovable property against the appellants who are two brothers and who are resisting the claim
The question is as to whether the writ jurisdiction in the High Court is available for the enforcement of such a right claimed by and against private individuals
906 3
The dispute relates to a house property in Delhi
A suit for eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial court
According to the case of the respondent No 1 who is the owner of the property she had let out the same to one Shri BK Pandey who later illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant no1
According to the further case of the respondent the portion of the said house property which is subject matter of the present case is beyond the purview of the pending suit
The occasion for initiating the present proceeding with respect to this portion arose it is said on account of the high handedness of the appellants who illegally trespassed beyond the area which is the subject matter of the pending suit and indulged in several illegal activities
In other words the appellants are trespassers and are guilty of mischievous conduct
However instead of filing a suit in the civil court or making an appropriate prayer for amendment of her plaint in the pending suit she through respondent no2 holding power of attorney approached the High Court directly by a writ petition under Article 226 for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents
The Delhi Administration and the Commissioner of Police Delhi were also impleaded as parties with a prayer that appropriate order should be issued against them also and they should be directed not to register any further false and vexatious complaint against them at the instance of the appellants
It is her case that the appellants have been getting undue police help and are being encouraged to commence frivolous criminal cases against respondent no1 and her agent
The appellants denied the allegations of fact made against them and also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition
Although the fact that a suit between the parties was already pending in the civil court was known to the High Court it proceeded to pass a short order stating There is already a civil suit pending between the parties
Except the prayer in regard to access to the backyard no other relief can be granted in this writ petition
We direct respondents 3 and 4 to remove the grill for access 907 to the backyard in the presence of the police and representatives of the petitioners on Sunday 23rd February 1922 at 1100 am so that the access of the petitioner to the servants quarters is not stopped 6
Mr Arun Jaitley the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No 1 has supported the impugned judgement on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondent nos
1 and 2 was also made
It has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondent nos
3 and 4 before the High Court and the High Court has by the impugned order considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for removal of the grills for access to the backyard
According to the stand of the landlord respondent since the police were taking a partisan attitude against her the filing of a writ petition became necessary
We are unable to follow this argument
There is no doubt that the dispute is between two private persons with respect to an immovable property
Further a suit covering either directly a portion of the house property which is in dispute in the present case or in any event some other parts of the same property is already pending in the civil court
The respondent justifies the step of her moving the High Court with a writ petition on the ground of some complaint made by the appellants and the action by the police taken thereon
We do not agree that on account of this development the respondent was entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court
It has repeatedly been held by this court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged
And in such a case the court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned
If the grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings and the orders passed and steps taken thereon she must avail of the remedy under the general law constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes for which remedies under the general law civil or criminal are available
It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant
908 The jurisdiction is special and extra ordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly
We therefore hold that the High Court was in error in issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgement under appeal
The appeal is accordingly allowed the impugned judgement is set aside and the writ petition of the respondents filed in the High Court is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
GN Appeals allowed


Summary:
During the tenure of respondent 1 as Depot Manager of the Bihar State Cooperative marketing Union Ltd a shortage of coal was detected
The appellant Cooperative Union made a claim for the loss and a reference was made to the Assistant Registrar cooperative societies under section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act 1935
section 481c deals with disputes between the Society
and a past or present officer or agent of the Society
Section 40 provides for investigation by the Registrar where upon an audit or enquiry such officer has been found guilty of misappropriation or similar acts
The Assistant Registrar in an enquiry under Section 48 absolved respondent 1
This was reversed by the Joint Registrar and an award made accordingly
The Patna High Court in a writ application under Article 226 by respondent 1 held that since the matter was covered by Section 40 Section 48 could not apply and set aside the award
The High Court relied on the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant
The claim under section 40 was rejected on the ground of limitation under second proviso to Section 40 which prescribe a period of six years
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD  1
Validity of plural remedies if available under the law cannot be doubted
Even if the two remedies are inconsistent they continue for the person concerned to choose from until he elects one of them commencing an action accordingly
A matter which may attract Section 40 will continue to be governed by Section 48 also if the necessary conditions 893 are fulfilled
In the present case no steps under Section 40 were ever taken by the appellant
The provisions of Section 48 are available to the appellant for the recovery of the loss
896C D Prem Jeet Kumar vs Surender Gandotra  Ors 1991 Supp
2 SCC 215 and Pentakota Srirakulu vs Co operative Marketing Society Ltd   followed
The claim of the appellant against respondent 1 is clearly covered by Section 481c and therefore was validly referred to the Registrar under Section 48
895G 3
The six year rule of limitation in Proviso under Section 401 is limited for the purpose of Section 40 and cannot govern a reference under Section 48
Even otherwise on facts the claim is not barred by limitation
897B Purnea Ministerial Government Officers  Co operative Society Ltd vs Abdul Quddus  distinguished
Matter remitted to the High Court for decision on the remaining issues
897F