\ Present: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Tamil Pakhanjore, Distn'ct Uttar Bastar Kanker, whereby the petitioner, who was holding the post of Sarpanch of - Gram Panchayat Chanakyapuri, Janpad Panehayat Koiyalibeda, was removed hon} the post of Sarpanch and was directed to hand over the charge to one Pradeep Sardar, Panch ofthe said Gram Panchayat. 2. Be that as it may, since there is a statutory provision available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, there is no reason to entertain this petition *\ \\ (iirectly when the petitioner has not exhausted all the stawtmy appellaie é HIGHaCOURT GFLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C1 No. 6140 of2008 PETITIONER : Rishikesh Devnath aged'35 years S/o Late Slm‘ Sham Devnath Samaneh of Village Panchayat Chanakyapuri, Janpad Panchayat, Koyailibeda, Tahsx’t ' —— Pakhanjor, District — Uttar Bastar Kanker(c.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattkgarh Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, I).K.S. Bhawan, Manualaya, Raiphr (C.G.) 2. The Collector, District — Uttar Easter Kanker (C.G.) 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pamhayat ~ Koyalibeda, District —~ , Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)t _ 4. The Sub Divisional O$cer (Revenue) Sub Division — Pakhanjore District - > WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIC ‘226 227 OF THE CONS ON OF Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aglihotgj. Shri Jitendra Nath Nancie, Advocate for the petitioner. --.-..-....- m ORALORDER (Passed on 05m day of November, 2008) Shn' Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. . redymavblea,xto‘hm. ,T case‘ e ee wn etnaitai his is not one of th as herei depalture m normal re ofresorting to statutory forum be allowed. o ul Nonnally the High Comt should not interfere if there is an adequate efiicacious alternative reed he hir o e s provided by my wer earchy f appals i the stamte must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting t , party o writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for makin a g departure. (See State oH.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and f another’, U.P.State Spinning C0. Ltd. v. RSPandey and anothe} and & m A Secy. U.P. High School Interediate Education, llahabad & another v. HKLaf, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of .P. and trs U ohe; MRState Am Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Johan g Khans and Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Comn. and another with Platinum, Entertainmatt- and ‘ ‘ another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another’ ). In View of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to r alternative statutory forum, that may be available to him, if so advised. No order asto costs. Sd/— 5 Satish K. Agnihotri‘ . Judge (2005) . 6 scc 499 2 (2005) s scc 2,64 3 (2cm) 2 scc 216 wk 2007 sc 3153 V 4 (200m 300338 . . . / ’ 5 (2007) 9 scc 593 _ r 1