High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 KL CK 0109

K. Faizel, Partner Blue Chip Mines and Industries, Vembalathpadam, Kalliyad P.O., Shornur, Pin - 679 122, Residing House No. 4/54(A) Near Providence G.H.S.S., Gandhi Road, Calicut, Pin - 673001 vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Palakkad, Pin - 678014 and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 20785 of 2012 (W)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 350 words

Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair

1.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the documents leading to Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P6.

ii) To issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 8 and 9 to restrain from the illegal business running by respondents, which was wrong and without sanction of law.

iii) Pass such other writs, order or direction as this Hon''ble Court deems fit, proper, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

iv) Pass such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No. 7 to give protection to the petitioner to enter the unit and discharge the duties as a partner of the firm.

Evidently, a writ of prohibition cannot be granted by this Court as against the respondents 8 and 9 who are stated to be partners along with the petitioner, of the firm namely, Blue Chip Mines and Industries.

2.

A reading of the writ petition shows that the petitioner''s grievance mainly is that the respondents 8 and 9 are siphoning off the firm''s money illegally and the statement of accounts has been produced along with the writ petition at page No. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was not allowed to enter the unit with the muscle power of the respondents 8 and 9. It is also averred in paragraph 2 that the employers in the unit are criminals and since the poor petitioner had no option, he submitted two petitions before the police. Other similar details are averred in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Evidently, a writ of prohibition can be issued only when inferior court or Tribunal acts in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice etc. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach appropriate forums to get a proper adjudication. Writ Petition is not a proper remedy in respect of the matters highlighted by the petitioner.

Leaving open the right of the petitioner to prosecute such remedies, this writ petition is dismissed.