IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36897 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAMUEL GEOGE, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. THE LATE SAMUEL, RES. AT KIZHAKKETTATH, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.PETER SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.BEPIN PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFARIS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICE, KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. 6. STATION HOUSE OFFICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR ADGP K.K.RAVINDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.36897 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or other direction to quash Exhibit P11 communication received by him from the 2nd respondent. Exhibit P11 is a show cause notice issued under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the KAAPA'). By the said notice, the petitioner is only called upon to show cause why an order of restraint should not be passed against him under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA. The petitioner has the option to make his submissions before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is statutorily obliged to consider the objections and pass appropriate order. 2. Without waiting to submit a reply to Exhibit P11 show cause notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash Exhibit P11. What are the reasons? It is trite that the jurisdiction under Article W.P.(C)No.36897/09 -2- 226 of the Constitution will not ordinarily be invoked by a court if the person seeking the relief has an equally efficacious alternative remedy. It is not a case where the court is lacking jurisdictional competence to issue appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. But it is a well accepted and entrenched rule of self imposed restriction that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction shall not be invoked when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. Of course in exceptional cases where the facts of the case compellingly demand such a course, it is open to the constitutional court to invoke such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the availability of such equally efficacious alternative remedy. But convincing and compelling reasons must be shown to exist. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain such reasons if any. What is the ground of challenge against Exhibit P11 that we should consider now without and before the 2nd respondent considers the same under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA? The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the expression 'complaint' in Section 2(o) and 2(p) must take its meaning from Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So W.P.(C)No.36897/09 -3- reckoned, none of the cases referred to in Exhibit P11 can bring the petitioner within the sweep of the expression 'known goonda' or 'known rowdy'. This in short is the contention. 4. We have referred to the contention only to satisfy ourselves that this is not such an exceptional case where notwithstanding the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy, this Court should invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. This Writ Petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We may hasten to observe that dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the 2nd respondent in response to Exhibit P11 and later, if that be necessary, to challenge adverse orders if any that may be passed by the 2nd respondent, by resort to the provisions Section 15(2) of the KAAPA. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn