IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No.2334 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35768/2008 Dated 03/12/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:- ----------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, PRESENTATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. V.J.VARGHESE, PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRESENTATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL), MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CIVIL), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., CIVIL SUB DIVISION, OCB TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING COMPOUND, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. AUGUSTIN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, PONNETH HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.RAMANATHAN. R3 BY ADV.SRI.VIJAYA MOHAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2334 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.35768/2008 dated 3.12.2008. 2. Appellants are individuals. They are aggrieved by Ext.P3 permit issued by the Secretary of the Perinthalmanna Municipality dated 26.6.2008. Certain assertions and allegations are made in the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge, was of the opinion, that, if, for any reason, a person is aggrieved by the permit that is issued by the Secretary of the Municipality, he has got a right of appeal and that right of appeal is not only effective, but also efficacious. Without exhausting that remedy, according to the learned Single Judge, the appellants/petitioners should not have approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in the writ petition are before us in this writ appeal. 4. Time and again we have observed, that, if a person has got an alternative, effective and efficacious remedy, he has necessarily W.A.No.2334/2008 -2- to exhaust that remedy. Bypassing that remedy, he should not have approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keeping all this aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has, rightly rejected the writ petition. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS