The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P2 order passed by Munnar Special Tribunal. The writ petitioner is the petitioner in MTOP No.3 of 2011. The above suit was filed for a declaration of title. Since the petitioner was absent on 27.09.2013, this was dismissed. 2. The Registry pointed out that this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy either by filing an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 or by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. An appeal would lie from the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 9, if there is a substantial question of law involved. It is mentioned in Proviso to Section 9 that no appeal will lie on factual aspects alone. Therefore, it is clear from Section 9 itself that a decision rendered on merits on the issues, an appeal will lie on substantial question of law. Here, in this case, no decision has been rendered on issues. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the order of dismissal of suit for default.
4. The question is whether a writ would lie against the order passed by the Tribunal or remedy is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep the Tribunals or Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and it can be used sparingly to interfere with the orders which may have a ramification based on the jurisdiction conferred on such Tribunal or Court. Normally, the High Court shall not be inclined to entertain any challenge invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, based on a decision on facts unless the Courts enter into a finding that Subordinate Courts or Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction.
5. In this matter, it shows that there is nothing wrong with exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal in dismissing the suit, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal by passing the impugned order. However, the adjudication in this matters is based on the special enactment under Munnar Special Tribunal Act. This adjudication normally ought to have been channelized through the hierarchy of Courts as available under the Civil Procedure Code. On account of the dismissal of suit, the petitioner is left without any remedy. This will result in invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorari as this order is allowed to stand would result in failure of justice. Considering the fact that there is no other remedy is available to the petitioner, to advance the cause of substantial justice, the impugned order therefore is liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Considering the nature of the issues involved in this writ petition, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits, otherwise it would amount to denial of access to justice which otherwise would have been vested with him under Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, Exhibit P3 is set aside and the petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 04.11.2014.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE DSV/16/10