IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32696 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BUHARI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SHAMSUDDIN, BEEMA MANZIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.A.HEMACHANDRAN, IPS, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.32696 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner has come before this court with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail an order of restraint passed against him under Section 15 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA). The petitioner has a right under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA to challenge the said order. A reading of Section 15(2) makes it clear that though the word 'appeal' is not specifically used, Section 15(2) confers on the aggrieved person the right to challenge the order by making a representation before the Board. 2. Without and before seeking the remedy under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA, the petitioner has come before this court. 3. We note that the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 15(2). We are not persuaded to agree that there is any necessity or justification for invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this juncture. Of course, powers W.P.C No.32696/09 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are sweeping and comprehensive. There is no want of jurisdiction for this court in an appropriate case to invoke such constitutional jurisdiction. But it is a well established rule of self-restraint that when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, in the absence of exceptional and compelling reasons, this court will not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to say that, we are unable to locate any such exceptional and special reasons on account of which this court should ignore the self-imposed salutary restriction and proceed to entertain this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. With the observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach the Advisory Board under Section 15(2) of the KAAPA to challenge the impugned order, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.32696/09 3 W.P.C No.32696/09 4 W.P.C No.32696/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009