SENGLE EE§§£R l (5" lgaé//‘ (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARIH, AT — BILASPUR ‘ i ) , WRIT PETITION (SWO. Q953 OF 2009 PETITTONER / Dwarika Prasad Suryawansh Aged — 52 years, Son of Late Praja am Suryawanshi, Junior Assistant (removed) At‘ — District Office, C. G. State Civil .Suppiies Corporation, JanjgiKr, District — Janjgir — i R/o Jarhabhatha, Mandir Chowk, Biiaspur, District — Bilaspur 6C. G.) v Champa (C. G.) i Versus i RESPONDENTS / :1. C. G. StateCivil Sguppiies Corporatio Limited, Raipur i Through —' The Managing Director, Bal Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (C. G.) The Managing Director, C. G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bal Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (C. G.) Shri M. N. Prasadr'ao General Manager/ Enquiry OffiCer C. G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,§ al Ashram CampUs, Kuchery Chowk, i Raiur (C.G.)‘ p Writ Petition Un‘e’r Artidle -_ 226 of Constitution of India i ' The petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under :— < i n . ‘ B HI‘GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH - BILASPUR ‘ Wm Petmon (S) No 2953 of 2009 g s Petitionefrg Dwarlka Prasad Suryawanshl Z 1 Versus ~ Respondémts C G State C1v11 Su phes Corporatlon t 1 L1m1ted Ra1pur&other x \ ‘ i WRIT PTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E (SB. Hon’ble Shn Saush K, Agmhotn J.) : s Shn R K Kesherwam, Advocate for the pet1t10ner. ' Shn Vlvek Ranjan Tlwarl, Advocate for the respondents O RD E R (Oral) (Passed on thls 5th day of November, Heard - i 1. The pet1t10ner, by th1s petltlon, 1mpugns the order dated 26 5 2009 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by the Managlng D1rector Chhatt1sgarh State C1v1l Supplies,__Corporati(j9n Limited,,Raipur, ' Whereby the petitioner has been removed‘from service under the prbvisibns of the M.P.’/C.G. Civil Services (Classification, ‘ I Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 2. Rule 24 of the C G State C1v1l Supphes Corporatlon Ltd (Classl, II, III 85 IV) V_S,erv1ce Recru1tment and Promotion Rules, 2005‘ (éforshort ‘the Rules, 2005’) provides for statutory appealv which reads as under}: I I I “24. ‘Appeal ‘ Any person 1n the serv1ce of the Corporation including a person who has ceased to be 1n serv1ce, aggrieved by any order of the Appomting Authority under these Rules, may appeal to be Board W1th1n 30 days of the receipt by him of such order and the f dec1s1on of the Board shall be final No further rev1ew/rev1s1on of or appeal against the order of the Board shall lie Wk; /§; Learned counsel for the pet1t1oner subm1ts that even 1f there 1s ‘ statutory remedy avallable 1f there 1s v101at10n ‘ § oft natural Justlce, of pr1nc1ples the Hlgh Court has to exerCISe the Jujrlsdwtlon under Art1cle 226 of the Const1tut10n of Ind1a relyang on the dec1smn of the Supreme Court 1n Committee of Management 85 Anr. V Vlce Chancellor 85 Ors.1 1a1d down 1n the case 1s that 1n a case of v101at1on of pr1nc1ples ‘ of natural Justlce supenor Court must 'entertam K t t . The rat10 as v the pet1t10n even 1f 1t 1s d1scretlonary Junsdlctlon of the Hlgh Court A flve Hon’ble Judges constltutlon B‘ench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 1n K S Raslud and 'Son v. Income Tax Investlgatlon Commission and Others}, observed that “the remedy prov1ded for 1n Art1cle 226 of the Const1tut1on 1s a dlscretlonary remedy and the ’High Court has always the dlscretlon to refuse to grant any Wrlt 1f 1t 1s satlsfied that the aggr1eved party can have an adequate or sultable rehef elsewhere ” The sald dec1s1on has been referred and follovv’ed / subsequently 1n a catena of dec1s1ons that 1f a relief cannot be granted by the appellate authorlty, the wr1t Jurlsdiction may be' > K I 1nvoked In the present set of facts all the rellef sought for by the petltloner can be granted by the c1v1l Court I “ r On‘the question of availability of alternative remedy, a three' ' Hon’ble Judges Bench of the Supreme Court 1n State of H P and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and anothe observed as under. x " 1 2009 AIR SCW 398 l . AIR 1954 SC 207 _ ‘ (2005) 6 SCC 499 r3 v r _ x i K “17 We shall f1rst deal With the plea re power relating to 1976, the ‘to be a rule of self— a rule .ef policy, corivenience and discretion and never a rule of law Despite the ex1stence of an alternative remedy, 1t is w1th1n the V Junsdlctlon of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution‘ Ait the same time 1t cannot be lost Sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do With the Jurisdiction of the case normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficaCious alternative remedy If somebody approaches the High Court Without availing th alternative remedy provided the High Cburt should ensure ’ that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grOunds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. gardmg alternatlve remedy as ra1sed by the appellant State Except for a per1od when Article 226 was amended by the Gonstitutlon (Forty— séc‘pnd Amendment) Act, 1 alternative remedy has been considered It is essentially im1w§sed limitation. 6. Further, applying the said ra‘tio in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.Pan‘dey/ and another", the Supreme Cour observed as under: “21. e d a . 4 (2005) 8 SCC 264 ' ’ I In U.P. State Bridge Corpn._ Ltd. V. U.P. Rajya Setu, Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh,’ it was held that when th dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provide under the statute, the‘High Court should not deviate from the generalview and interfere under'Article 226 except when a very strong case is made Out 'for making \ a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy\can vail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. _v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna t e ”L‘r 1 1 1 I x ¢ l ! ‘ \ Kaht, Chandrakant ’I‘ukaram'Nikam V. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred.” i 1 i ThisECourt in M/s Thobhani Autho Mobiles vs. State of 1 Chhjatjtisgarh and Otherss, While dealingi with the issue ,of altefn‘iative remedy observed that-"norma1l1y the High Court i shouliji not interfere if there is’ an adiequate, efficacious alternfative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when af very strong case is made‘out for making a departure.” In Committee of Management at Ani'.(supra), cited by. learned counsel for the petitioner, Hon’ble two Judges of the Supreme Court observed that despite of the fact that an , i , alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where the same’would not be an efficacious one, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. An exception is carved ’ out when in a case where the .order passed by the authority is without jurisdiction or without following the principles of g I natural justice, the High COurt Shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction. i The facts in the case on hand, there is no challenge on the competence/jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 to pass the t l , ' U E impugned order and the order was passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing and as such, the principles of natural justice have also been complied with. Thus the ratio as ‘ ‘5 WP(C) 4&87 of 2007’ Thakur ag/ ? ‘ laid down in Committee of Management as Anr. 1L10t be applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. ‘Fn View of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of a railability .of alternative Isitatutory, efficacious remedy under the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules, 2005. However, liberty is reserved to the pietifioner to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum, available to him, if so advised. No order asto costs. (supra) may l l l r L Sd/- . Satish K. Agnihptri Judge ~.—HT;..(mM~A ,., ‘