HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONrSI No. 3838 of200'7 PETFTIONER ^ ^ RESFONDENTS Tg Ram Venna S/o Shri Kripa Ram Vemia, aged about 27 yeaes, resident of ViBage Padakidih, Btock wid Tahsil Sin^a, Distriet Raipur(C.G.) VER8US : 1. State of Chhattisgarii Tln-oug^ the Seeretary Panehayat and Social Welfare Depariiaent D.K.S. Bhawaa Raipur (G.G.) 2. The Additional Collector, Badoda Bazar, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional QfEcer @ Bhatapara, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) 4. Gram Panchayat Padkidih, Block awi Tahsil Simga, Distriet Raipur (C.G.) tiirou^i its Sarpaneh Gram Panchayat Padkidih, Block and Tahsil Sinaga District Raipur (C.O.) 5. Secretary, Gram Panehayat PadBddBi, Block aad Tahsil Simyi, District Raipur, (C.O.) 6. Sewa Ram Dhrov S/o Amp Sw^i IXsav, resideat of Village Padkidih, Block and Tafasil Sim^, District Raipur (C.G.) 7. Chief Executive Qfficer, Jaipat Panchayat Simyi Distriet Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTrTUTION OF INDIA StnzleBenchs Hon'bte Jnsttee ShriSaffldi K. Aanflwtal. Preseiit: Smt. Renu Koehar, Advocate for ttie pettti<mer. Smt Anju Ahuja, Deputy OovemmeHt Adrocate for the ^ate/ respondentNo. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on 4" day ofJuly, 2007) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by appomSaaassS. of re^taideHt No. 6 as Panchayat Kanni on Ihe basis ofresolution dated 16.01.20CC7 pas^d by fhe Gram Panchayat Padkidih, Block and Tehsil Sim^i. The mMn contention oflhe petitioner was tfaat tfiere is seweral in^ularUtes in flie < ;.Ss^: V. resolution. Thus, the ^(poadment orda- passed ia favour of Ifae respondeHt No. 6 is bad. Be that as it may. Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh/Chhatti^aifa Pandhayats (^)peal & Revision) Rules, 1995 providss for sppeal to tte suiwrior aufhorities. The petitioner, witfaout taking reeouise to eflfectiw aid altemative remedy has approached this Cowt laada- Article 226 ofthe CMistitution directly. It is Irite tfaat this Court can exereise discretion even in the cases where altemative statutory remedy is available, but only in excq>tK»ial circutnstances. In the facts of tfae preseirt case, it does not watraat ititerference by tfus Court under Article 226 oflfae CoHStitati<a. Thus, Ms petiticm is dismissed as aot maintainable. • j : : S(V- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .41 ^mt