IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24722 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KUNHIRAMAN MULLACHERI NAIR,CHAIRMAN & HEREDITORY TRUSTEE,SREE MADIAN KOOLOM KSHETHRA PALAKA KSHETHRAM,MANIKKOTH.PO,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. P.GOPALAN,THEKKINIYIL HOUSE,MANIKKOTH POST, KASARAGOD-671 329. 3. T.V.BALAKRISHNAN,PUTHIYAVEETTIL, MANIKKOTH POST,KASARAGOD-671 329. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,NEELESWARAM.PO,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) 24722 OF 2009-I -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 27th August 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. The petitioners have approached this court, challenging Ext.P6 order. According to them, the said order is without jurisdiction, passed by an Officer, subordinate in rank to the Deputy Commissioner and it has been passed in discharge of a statutory function. He places reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Girja Shankar Shukla v. Sub Divisional Officer, Harda (AIR 19973 MP 104). It is contended that the said order is ex facie bad in law. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable since the petitioners have invoked the statutory appellate remedy and has also filed an interim application for stay and it is thereafter that he has filed this Writ Petition. Therefore, it is submitted that having invoked the statutory appellate remedy available to them, they cannot invoke a parallel remedy under Article 226 of the WPC 24722/09 2 Constitution of India. We find force in the said contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel. When a party aggrieved by an order has invoked the statutory appellate remedy available to him, he cannot choose to file a Writ Petition without withdrawing the appeal. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, along with the appeal, the petitioners have preferred an application for stay of Ext.P6 order. There will be a direction to the appellate authority, the first respondent Commissioner to hear the interim relief sought for in Ext.P8 and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, Ext.P6 will stand stayed. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 24722/09 3 WPC 24722/09 4