,mQH CQURT OF CHHATTISGAw AT BILASPUR ‘W’RTY PETmON ‘c No. 4887 of 2007 “397 MIs. Thobhani Auto Mobiles, Manendragath, , Digtriei Thobhani Karea, S/o Shri through Shahbuddin, iis Farmer aged about Smm 3’7 years, R/o Bairan Bazar, Raipur {C.G.) RESPONDENTS ‘ : 1. State of VERSUS Chhattisgarh, through‘Socretary, _ ' Food ‘ i ’ ‘ ‘ and Civil Suwlies Departmem, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.< Food 0mm, Amoikapur, District Surguja , (co) o . - / ‘ 3. The Collecto , District Surguja (C.G.) , t; WRIT ‘ ‘ PETYHON UNDER _SB:‘Hon"ble ARTICLE Shri Sati 226 OF THE CONS' ‘ o ‘ ”I'IUI‘ION . OF INDEA i _ ' Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shr T.K.Tiwari,, Advocate for tlie petitioner. ' ‘ ‘ Shri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the Staiefreepondents. PETITIONER (sed 011mm (ORAL) Pas on 09 ‘day of July, 2009) eard learned oounsei appearing for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: “7.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case ofvthe petitioner mint the posseésion of the respondent No; 2 kind'perusal. ' ’ ‘ This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quaslzingand setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.07 Annexur’e P-3 Any Court other may relief think or proper relief(s) in view which of the this facts Hon’ble amt circumstance of the case, may also kindly b granted. _ 7.4 Cost ofthe petition be also awarded.” he indisputable facts, as projected by thepetitioner is that e T th IV petitioner is a fum engaged in the business of Kerosene oil. The petitioner hires tankers for lifting kerosene oil from depots. On 19.07.2007 the petitioner lifted kerosene oil from Raipur, Mandir ‘ Hasaud Depot which was to be unloaded at Ramanujnagar, Distriot @ z ‘ kg ‘ shKA J . i H e W h Smguja._ After unloading the kerosene oil when the tanker was retuming bank to Raipur, the t§nker was stopped and searched by the Food Ofiicer and his team. According to the petitioner, when nothing was found, the driver and the conductor of the truck were compelled to fulfill their demand On'refusal, a panchnama was e prepared. The said incident is said to have taken place on 20.07.2007. The. respondent No. 2‘ , vide order dated 04.08.2097 (Annexure Pl3), suspended the license of the petitioner alleging . that 1200 liters‘ofkerosene oil lifted by the petitioner under Public Distribution System, has been embezzled. Thus, this petition. Shri Kesharwani. leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aforesaid act of the respondent No. 2 is against the ‘ principles of audi alteram partem. Further; the respondentshave not complied with Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealer Licensing Order, 1979, before suspending the license ofthe petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has an altemative remedy. r available under the provisions of Rule 16 and 17 of the Madhya .Pradesh Kerosene Dealer Licensmg Order 1979 Ihave heard learned counsel appearing for the parties perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Rule 16 and 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Kerosene Dealer Licensing Order 1979 reads as under “16 Appeal — (I) Any person aggrieved by anv order of the ‘ p licensing authority refusing to grant, re—issue or renew a heenee or cancellmg or suspending a licence forfeitmg the securitv deposited by the lieensee under the pioVisions of this order hp ' may appeai to the Commissioner or Additional Commssioner ofthe D1v1s10n w1thm 3O days of the date ofthe receipt by hun of such order (2) No order shall be made under this clause unless the ggrieved person has been given a reasonabie opportunity of stating his case. (3) Pending the disposal of an appeal the Commissioner or Additional, Commissioner of me Division may direct that the rder refusing to renew a Iicence or the order canceiiing o suspending a licence‘or forfeiting the security shall nor tak eEect until the appeai is disposed of. O r e 17 Revrsmn — The State Government may on its own motion or on the apphmtion by any aggrieved party at anytime for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by Comnnssmner of the Dmsion 01 Additimlal Commissioner call for and examine the record of any case dispOsed ofby the Commissmner or Additional Commissioner as the case may be and may pass such Order thereon as it thinks ft Provrded that it shall not any or reverse anv Order unless I the person affected by the proposed order has been given an opportunity of being heard Protected iiirther that no application for revision shall be entertained unless presented Within thirty days from the date of communication to the applicant of the order against which the application is being made.” n bare perusal of the above Rules, it is apparent %hat the petitioner has efficacious; alternative statutory remedy available for redressal of his grievances before approaching this Court. Further, the petitioners has not made out any exceptional circumstances so asto exercise discretionar jurisdiction under y Article 226 ofthe Constitution of lndia. On the question of availability of alternative remedy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State ofH.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another}, observed as under: “l7. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State Except for a period when Article 226 was amended hv the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act,l976 the power relatino to alternative remedy has been conSidered to be a rule of self-‘ 1 (2005) 6 soc 499 i ' a ’ O y, Q7 imposed htmtatxon It is essentially a rule 0f policy, convemenc» and discrenon and never a ruie of law Despxte he ex1stence of an altematwe remedy 1t 1s w1thm the juusdmtm: uf dxbcremm of the Hlgh Court to grant rehef under A11icle 226 of the Constitution.~ At the same timeg it cannot be iost sight of that though the matter relating to an aitematwe remedy haS nothmg to do wxth the jurisdiction of the eaSe, nonmliy the Ihgh Court shouid not mterfere if there 1s an aéequate emcacmus altematwe remedy I homebody approaches the High Court Without avallmg the alternative remedy provitied the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong- case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdietion. 21. In G. Veerappa Piila v. Ramon & Raman Ltd, CCE v. Dunlov India Ltd' Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. Stae of Trz'purta, Shivgand’a Anna Patillv. State ofMaharashtr‘a; (‘A Abraham v HO Titaghur Paper Mills Co Ltd v State of Ormsa IIB Gandhz vs Cop: Nat}: and Sorts Whzrlpool Corpn V Regtstrar of Trade Marks, fm Plate Co oflndza Ltd v State ofBIhar Sheela Dew v Jaspal bmgh and Punjab Natzonal Bank v O C Krishna): this Comt held that where hierarchy of appeals 1s prov1ded by the statute partv must exhaust the statutory remedies before lesomng to writ Jurisdictton Further, applying the said ratio in the matter of UJ’. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. RS. Pandey and anotherz, the Hon’ble Supreme Comt observed as under: “21. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.Kaimaohari Sangh, it was held that when the . dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specifie remedy is theiefore provided uude the statute the High Court should not dev1ate from the general View 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 avail of the process as prov1ded under the statute To the same effect are the deciSions in Premier Automobiles Ltd v Ixamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan QR’IC v Knshna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Coipn. o Ahmedabad and in Scooters India vs. Vijai E.V. Eldred.” 10. In another decision on the concept of maintainability of writ petition vis-a-Vis availability of altemative remedy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secy. U.P. High Schaoi & '2 (2005) 8 soc 264 t f " r f Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v. HK. Lali, observed as under: A “4. From the records it is borne out that the question o asto whether the respondent has a legal right to alter his date of birth recorded in the certificate granted by the Board was pending consideration before the w appellate Court. The 'writ petition tiled by the respondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particularly in View of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and should not ordinarily be A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned eases is that normally the High Court should not interfere ifthere is an adequate, emcacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided 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 depaxture. Applying the well-settled dicta laid down by the Hon’bie Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as no strong case has been made out for exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. However; it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory / remedy that may be available to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 16 exercised ifthere is an alternative remedy.” 3 (2007) 2 SCC 216 and 17 of the Order, _l979, if so advised. 1 Sdl- satish K. Agnihotri Judge f&