Court emphasizes exhausting appeal remedies before filing writ petition, directs appeal filing within four weeks

The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory appeal remedies before resorting to writ petitions. It directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks and instructed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on its merits. The respondents were prohibited from taking any coercive action against the petitioner until the appeal was heard. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the impugned order dated 10.09.2015.
2. Availability and necessity of exhausting statutory appeal remedies.
3. Role of judicial review and separation of powers.
4. Conditions under which writ petitions can be entertained despite alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.09.2015 issued by the original authority under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner contended that the order is "non est in law" and that the original authority did not adhere to the basic principles and instructions issued by the Department. The petitioner argued that filing an appeal would be a futile exercise and would not provide a speedy remedy.

2. Availability and Necessity of Exhausting Statutory Appeal Remedies:
The court emphasized that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy to approach the Commissioner (Appeal I-Coimbatore) against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. The court highlighted that appeal remedies are provided under the statute for a purpose and should not be waived routinely. The court stated that the appellate authority, being a quasi-judicial functionary, is empowered to adjudicate the merits and legal grounds raised by the parties under the provisions of law.

3. Role of Judicial Review and Separation of Powers:
The court underscored the importance of maintaining institutional respect and the doctrine of separation of powers. It noted that unnecessary or routine invasion into the statutory powers of competent authorities should be restrained by constitutional courts. The court cited several judgments to illustrate that the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution and must be respected. The court asserted that judicial review should be limited where statutory remedies are available, and high courts should not interfere with appellate powers without valid and substantiated reasons.

4. Conditions Under Which Writ Petitions Can Be Entertained Despite Alternative Remedies:
The court discussed the legal principles settled by the Apex Court regarding the exhaustion of alternative remedies. It cited various judgments to explain that writ petitions should not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy is available, except in exceptional circumstances such as gross injustice or violation of fundamental rights. The court reiterated that the remedy of appeal should not be made an empty formality and that writ petitions should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The appellate authority is bound to consider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Until the appeal is taken up for hearing, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---