ffiGH COURT OF CHHATTISXxARH AT B&ASFUR y»^streaaanfS)91So.3322MSa PETJ1IONBR -Ex?" Santosh Kumar Dhrttfahara ^o Shri Ja^fisb Prasad s, aged about 25 y^rs, resadent of village Biftaili, Gram Panchayat. Bitkuli, Blodi: Bbati^paia, DisteictRaipur(CG). VBR8US iRESPOpnOENTS : 1. State ofCMia^sgarii Ihrou^ !Se<wtary, PsuneluQrtand Soeud Wel&re Dq)artmen^ Maateala^ DES Bhawan, Raipur(eG). 2.The Director, Directaiate cf Paiiehayat and Socirf Welfce, CfahaUisgaA, Raipiu' (CX3). 3,The Cbllector (PaachayatBiwcfa),l^ip8r(eG). 4The Quef Exeeutrw Officei, Sasapa^ :Pas»Siays^ BhatEqMu-a, DistrictRapBf (CO). S.The Ssspaasb, Gisexi Pwas&yaS, SWcx^ Bloefc Bhat^)ara,I5istnctRaq>iu'(CG). Gram PaneUa}af Biiteffi, JaiqMd ^icbayat fihat^iata, DtStrictRaipur(G(^. (WRIT PETmON UNDEt AEtTlCLE 226 OF THE GQNSTITUHON OF E®IA> (SB: HaB'WteMr. Stetfsk K. Aaiaiotri.JA PTesent : Smt.RimuKochac.Ajitvoeatefiwthepetttio^'; Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate f<»rfte State. OMALQRDER (Passcd<m 30u'd^tdF.RBtt,2(N)^i I. Leamed covmsel appesamy fw &e petitioner snteite tiiat Gram Panchayat Bilfculi, Block Bhatqiara, Distriet Raipur (CG) resolved to recommend same ofthe respondwt No. 6 for appoiBftmeHt <nAe post ; of fanchayat Karmi. Therealter. acc®Klingto leamed-couasel f<w the ^. petitioner,theresolutionwasapprovediBdieGnMnSabfaa.Heftwther subnats that merit was DOteonsidered, des{»te the &ct, an otder appomtingthe respondaitNo, 6, as fanchayatKanni, wasjpasaed. i: 1 .ay^fssi^^^^ -.-^B^ ^.^^^^KsSji^Jffililj^^^^ 'y.:'•s:::w'faS:si'": ^.•SStiF~~^s»-^iSiSi3^®;;?v?3KSsm3S3''SB;;' <- ^ V. 2^ 2. The petitioner has approached this Gourt direc^ igaormg Ae a^lability of altemative statutoiy remedy as provided umier Ae provisions of Rule 3 ofthe M.P./C.G. (^ped aBd Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules, 1995) read with seetKMi 91 of the Chhattis^arh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993_ (for slrort the Adluniyam, 1993). 3. Thus, in the lightofdecistoa dated 24.04.2008, passedia Ae matter<rf SBrt.RamBaiYs,8tateofChhattisgariian<lfltheis(W.P.(8) >. 6031 of2006), the High Court m^entiertaia a ^eftion cnty whcm avay strong ease is mads outfiwdepartuTefiom statutewy scheme. 4. In Ifae present case; no excepitional csiTcumstaiws erist whereta tfae High Court should niake depmlure fiwm fte aonn^ rule. Thas, this <•• .• ' '• • . .' petituMiisdisimssedasnotmaintmaabi^oathe^ouHdofawmlafeility ofdternative ramedy. However,'it is (qiento flie petitiiDner to take recourse to stetutoiy alterBathw fe)rum (hat inay be aEvailabte.to faim underthe provisioas oflaw,ifsoadvi9ed.NoorderaEtocosts. Sahu ^f' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .j.. t ^£SiSi^^^-.^