A^ PETITIONERS WRITPETmON rS) No. 3097 of2808 1. Manish Kumar Agrawal Aged about 33 yeaxs, S/8 Shri Ctiaadra Kuinar Agrawal, R/o Belthid Dr. Gulati y.tuismg Home Arya Nagar,District Durg, ChMattisgarh; 2. Avinash Sharma Aged about 28 years, 8/o Shri N.K/Shamia R/o Purana Naka Para, Chaiaaia District Kanker, ChhattisgaTh. 3. Ku. Slianti Aged at}out'% yeare, C/o Stiri Halaii Wa Suman Gycle Stores, Behiad Knshna Garagc, Indira Nagar, DaUhi-Rahjahara, Disti-ict Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. SSianli,.ar Lal Rawate Aged about'34 yeai-s C/o Shd Subhah Singh Rawate R/o Griun Boreeaon, post Theina Buzurg, Tehsil Balod, DisteictDurg, Chhatfeearh. 5. Smt. Swafi .Ttfvedi -i^ed about 39, yeacs W/o - Shri Alok, Trrvedi^ R/o Kaimachan Colony, Bhaaugi'ata.pp^DistHetKanlserChha.ttisgarh. 6.Siifl.Jini.Ge0TgeAgedabout3I,y8ars,l'W/oShn . JoiiBsda' •Samuel: -; C/o..; 'SubhasIi . ^Para, Bhaaupratappia-, Distncf Kanker, eiihattisgarh. 'VERSUS.:::^ ; .'. • : , • :: 1. State of Chhattisgarh 'I'hrough fhe Secretan'. Panchayat and Gramitt Vikas Depalinent, DKS Bhavan, Maiitralaya, Raipur (Chfaattisgarh) 2. Diisctor, Dirsctorate, Panchayat Evani Saaiaj SevaRaipur(ChhattisgaA) , | 3. Collector, Distriet Uttar Bastar Kaiifcer .(Chhattisgarh) ;' ,: ^ ;, - . , • .1:, :^ .• : :;, 1 4. ,CtaefExecutivepfficer,'jaaPanchayat,Distnct Uttar Bastar Kaaker (CMiattisgarh) 1 RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION XJNDER ARTICLE 226 OE THE CONSTnDTION:OF BSDIA SB:!.Hon'UcSIa4.SatishK..AsnihQtpi.J.. : ' ,.'I'Y'\ . Shri Jttendra Palt Advocate for ttie ShriAmn8ao,G<)vernmefltAdvocatefbrtlieStateA^spQadenLtslta •ORAL.Qfia^R: ,.. , :".. : :.. :. :•.:• (Passedoal9ttl^dayQfAugust,20Q8) : ;! l Leamed counsel appearing fm- the peytioner submtts tUat the respondeiit-authorities Iiave failedto understaadthe puiport aftiie order •wherein, befbre passmgtheimpugnedordersdated 23.65.2008 (AniMxure P/3 colly.), pnnciples of natural justice was require.d to be complied wifh. tt is fiulheFtioHtetuM that:sli^cause notiw^ issued on one @'ound and fhe impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (AanBxurp P/3 colly.) were passed on dyferent ground...No shBW-cause-Batice oar t 4. opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in respect of the ground, which was taken. for passingthe impugned order. Be fhat as it may, since it involves question of facts which can be eonsidered. only by tfae appe3].ate authority, tbus, this ca.se is not one of the case wherein departure from nonnal role of resorting to statutory forumbe allowed. ^ On Ihe question of availabilitv of altemative remedv, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. cmd others v. Gujarat Ambuj'a Cementand another^, observsd as under: "17. We shall fu-st deal with Ihe plea regarding altemative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Coastitution (Forty- secoud AnienAnetit) Act, 1976, the -power t'elating to altemative remedv has been considered to be a rule of self- iaiposed limitatioa. It is esseatially a rule of policy, convenience aad discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an altemative remedy, it is witliin flie jurisdiction of discTelioa of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. At the sanie time, it caimot be Sost sight of that though the matter relating to aa ; aitemative remedy has notlriag to do witli the jurisdiction of ,, Ihe case, noraaallythe High Court should not interfere ifthere is aii adequate efSeacious altemative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availiag the altemative i-ernedy provided flie IIigh Court should eiisure fliat he has made out a strong case or fhat fhere exist good grounds to invoke t!ie extrao'rdmaryjurisdiction. 21. In G.Veerappa Pilla v. Raman & Raman Ltd.; CCE v. Dunhp India Ltd.; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra: C.AAbraham v. ITO, Titagfiur Paper Mills Co.Ltdv. State of Orissa; H.B.Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade. Marks; Tin Plate Co. oflndia Ltd. v. StateofBihar.SheelaDevi v. JaspalSingh andPunfab Natfonal Bank v. O.C.Krishnan, tliis Court held that whei-e hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before Tssorting to writ jurisdiction. " Furfher, applying the said ratio in the matter of U-P.State Spinnmg Co. Ltd.v.R.S.Pancieyandanothef2,'tbe Supreme Courtobserved as under: "21. Ia U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd.,.v. Uf.Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karmachari Sangh, it was held that whea the dispute to eaforeement of a right or ' (2005) 6 SCC 499 ' (2005) 8 SCC 264 ^.v-y 7°^. -3- Amit statute and specific remedy is, fherefore, provided under the statute, the. High Court should not deviate from fhe general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very stroag ease is made out for making a departure. Tlie person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the sane effect ai-e the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram WaeBcB, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Mumcipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad. and m Scootera Ine&a v. Viiai E.V.Eldred. " In aiiother decision on fhe concept of mamtainability of writ petition vis-a-vis availability of altemative remedy, the Supreme Court in fhe matter ofSecy. U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad s&: anotherv. H£.l^af,obsen/ed as under: "4. From the records it. is bome out that the question asto whcther tho respondent has a iegal nglit to alter Us date of birtfa recorded in the certificate granted by the Board was penduig consideratioa before fhe appellate Court. The writ petition filed by fhe respondent should, fherefore, not have been enteitained particularly in view of the fact fhat the appeal, thereagaiast was pending. Writ jurisdietioa is exa-cised iffhere is an altemative remedy. A common thread mmring into the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in tfae aforementioned cases is fhat, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is aa adequate efiicaciQus altemstive remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by th^ statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdietion, except whea a very strong case is made out fbr malung a departure. 7. Applying the well-settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to fhe facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as no strong case has been made out for exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour oftfae petitioaers. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to altemative statutory fonim, raising all the g-ounds, avaiiable to the petitioners, ifso advised.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Juc^e (2007) 2 SCC 216