1 y HiGH COURT OF CHHATTI Writ Petition (Si No. 1100 of 2009 PetiSioner . Motee Sinsh Thakur, S/o Shri Kanwa! Singh Thakur, aged about 31 years, R/o Viliage Sondar, Post Dharampura, Via Mungeii, District Bilaspur (CG). versus Resoondsnts 1 State of C.G.. throuah the Secretarv. Panchayat and Rurai Development Department, D.KS Bhavii'an, Ralpur (CG). 2 The Coiiector, Bliaspur, District Bllaspur (CG). 3 The Joint Coiisctor. BiiasDur, District Bilaspur (CG). 4 Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, tnrough the Chief Executlve Officsr, Masturi, DistrictBi!aspur(CG). (Wrft Peiitlon under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) (SS : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Dr. Rajesh Pandey and Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsei for the pet!t!oner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatla, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ' {Passsd ofi thls 28 dav of Fsbfusrv. 20091 The petitioner Is aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2009 (Annexure-P/1) passea bythe Joint Coiiector, on the orders ofthe Coiiector, •A'hereby the petitioner was removed from seri/lce on the ground that the petitioner has Droouced a fake D.Ed. Dipioma Certmcate. it v»as furthe.r directed to iodge First information Report (FiR) before the poiice authorities. The petitioner is aiso aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2009 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Chief Execuiive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, v/hereby the service of the petitioner was terminated on the same ground. 2) Section 91 of the Chhattisaarh Panchavat Rai Adhinivam, 1983 (for short "ths Adh'niyam, 1993"') read with Ruls 3 of ths Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeai and Revision) RuSes, 1995 (for short "tha Rules, 1995''') T^'^'^' 't^f-'"^ J.i ?*^^y ^Iy^-<t^ f\yf^ ^,y y>? ^^i.^^ ^^'.^\H'^./^^t-^^.?-t ^ii^s^/^/ti i/F^ ?la^u*?k ? g^r^^i T vi <^*h ^ ^/^ ^ ^*^ ^^ ?js<-?vius& ui&l. ci^'ss.sn^t lus; u;uy! Ul ini:; '^-/UilSL.-lU'i &sJ^S=<3l IS1 Hi£[Hi^inctyiy iu ^ii? Director of Panchayat. 3) Dr. Pandev, iearned counsei appearina on behaif of the Detitioner submits that since the ordsr dated 18-2-2009 (Annexure-P/1) oassed bv ths Joint Col'ector on the orders of the Coilector, no appeai !s maintainabie to the Collector and thereafter subsequent appeal to Director of Panchayat is aiso not maintainabie on the ground that the Joini Coiiector has dlrecied te inifiate crimlnai proceedlngs. The case of the petitioner is that the iinpuyned ordsr was passsd after affording opportunity of hearing to the petiiioner. 4) Bs that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, I havs found that statutory' appeilate provislon is a-dequate, effeciive and .^]^^/^?/*^3 ^-C? ^^l^V^S to S^-^ ?±.^<^^.^-Y^ *p.^lli ^;'Y/'^Fr^ic-^^ ^i-n^l»»'.^rsTi-^I"S ??*^ ^?-'^/^? ?^' <^'m ^^J^-. t^inuaUiyu^s. i I ISiS iS U^ i^yS'L'U i.'»-i ^AciifJiSC' 'Ut'Swicili'yi^ iH s&Vyui ^l '-IISs petifionsr when the above statutonf' appellate forum Is avaiiabie. Order to direcl: prosecution can be considered by ihe Apoeilate Authority, thsrs is no bar under the provisions of la\v. : • 5) On the question of avaiiability of aiternative remedy, ihe Hon'bis Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another , obseived as under; "17. We shaii flrst deai with the piea regardinj aitsrnatlve remedy as ralsed by the appeliant State. Except for a period when Article 228 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, ths power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a ruie of seif-impossd limitation. !t Is essent(ai!y a rule of pollcy, conveniencs and discretion and never a rule of iaw. Despite the ex'stence of an aiternatlve remedy, it is within th® jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grani rsiief under Articie 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be iost siaht of that thoush the matter relating to an altemative remedy has "othing to do with the jurisdjction of the cass, normally the High Court shouid not interfere if there is an adequaie efficacious alternative remedy. 'f somebody apprcaches' ths High Court wlthoui avaiiing ihe a'ternative remedy provided the Hlgh Court shoutd ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary iurisdictlon. 21. Jn G. 'v'eerappa Plila v. Rsman & Ramsn Lid., CCE v. Dunhp Ltd; KSsho/s Biswas v. Stae of Tripura, Shivgonda Anna Patii v. State of Maharashtra: C.A. Abraham v. !TO, TitaQhw Pa.oer Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa; H.B. Gandhs vs. Gop! (2005) 6 SCC 499 Nath and Sons; 'vVhiripool Corpn. V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Tin Plate Co. of !ndia Ltd. v. State of Bihar, Sheeia Devi v. Jaspal Singh and Punjab Nationa! Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, this Court held that where hierarchy of appsais is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies befors resortina to writ iu"sdiction." Further, appiying the said ratlo in U.P. State Spinning Co. another . the Hon'bie Supreme Court obsei .fH ,ia. vs, ved a; undei "21. In U.P. State Bridgs Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Ralva Setu Nigam S.Karmacharl Sangh, if was held that wnen tiie dispute reiates to enTorcement ot a ngnt or obiigation under ths statute and speciflc remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court shouid not deviate from the gensrai vlew and interfere under Article 226 except when a vepy' strong cs.se is made out for making a depanurs. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail'of the process as provided under ths statute. To the saffie effect are the decisions in Premler Automobiies Ltci. v. Kamiskar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. JVuniclpai Corpn. of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India vs. Vijai E.V. 7) !n anothsr decision on the concept of maintainabtiiiy of writ petitjon vis-a-vis availabiiity of aiternative remedy, the Hon'bie Supreme Court in intermediate Education. Ailahabad & ^ inother v. H.K. Lal'', observed as under: "4. From the records It is borne out that the auesaon asto whether the respQndent has a iegal right to alter his date of birth recorded In the certlncate granted by the Board was oending consideratlon' before the appesiate uourt. i he wnt petition Tiisa oy tne respondent shouid, therefors, not have been entertained particulariy in vlew of the ract that the appeai thes-eagainst was pendlng. Writ jurisdiction is discretiona"/ jurisdiction and shouid not ordinari'y be exercised if thera is an aiternative remsdy." 8) A common thrsad runnina into the dicta !aid down bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court Sn the aforernentioned cases is that normaiiy the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efncacious alternative remedy wt-sre hiei'archyof appeais Is provided by the statute, pany must exhaust the statutory remsdy before resoning to writjurisdiction, except whsn s very strong case is made oui for rnaking a departure. 2 ,(2005) 8 SCC 264 (2007)28cc216 3) This Court slso in Chandrika Prasad Sahu and oshers vs. State of Chhatfisgarh and others (Writ Petnion (S) No. 4597 of 2008), decided on 28-8-2008, reiyins on various ciecisions of Hon'bte Supreme Court on the question of a'rternative remedy, observed that "nori'naiiy the High Court shouid not interfere if there is an adequate, efficacious, aiiernativs remedv where hserarchy of appeals is provj.dsd by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. 10) !n view of the foregoing, 'A'ithout sxpressing any opinion on merits, this Detition is dismlssed as noi malntainabie at ihe admissi'on staae itseif. However, iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum that may be avaiiabie to the petitioner under the orovisions ot law, it so aavised. Consequentiy, i.A.No.1 siands disposed o' af.W Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge