W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BISP WRIT PETITION (C) No 107 of 2008 2 The Collector D1str1ct Bxlaspur Bllaspm , 3 The Tahs1ldax Tahs11 Bllaspur Bilaspur W F INDIA RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION O SB Hon’ble Shrl Satlsh K Agmhotrl, J resent. r Shn U N Awasthv Semor Advocate With Shn M K Smha Advocate for the petmoner ‘ Shn Bhaskar Payas1 Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents ORAL ORDER ‘ ‘ (Paseed on’26mday of February,'2009) Tms petition Impugw the order dated 01 10 2007 (Annexure P/l and P/2) on the ground that no reasonable oppomxmty of hearmg was aiTorded to the pentioner Shn Awasthy, learned semor counsel appearmg for the petltloner subnnts that 1f he takes lecourse to statutory ’ remedy avallable under the law, 1t 1s not efficacwus. The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to ah l ‘the ‘Code 1959’) is a, self contained It provides for’gram of relief and other remedies The Code 1959 thither prov1des for appeal and appellate authorities in Chapter V section 44 This is a case Where in normal course an appeal is maintainable before the Sub D1Vis1onal Ohicei against the order ofthe Tahsrldar then to the Collector and then to the Board of Revenue Shri Awasthy hirther submits that alternative remedy available to the petitioner is not ehicacious The contention of learned counsel that the remedy is not efficaCious does not merits acceptance as the statutory iemedy is prov1ded in the court below as more effective and efficaCious remedy then the writ petitions in the High Court wherein oases of all the nature are pending consideration. LAUR P PETITIONER : Shn Dwanka Dhlsh Ahuja S/o Late Shn Tekan Das Ahuja aged about 19 years Busmessman, r631dent of Naya Sarkandav Bilaspur; VERSUS ”RESPONDENTS :‘1. The State of chhauiégarh, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur. On t‘hev Question \of availability of alternative malady, the I:Ion’ble Supreme Cou11 in thekmattei‘ of Srate ofHP and others v. Gtljrat Ambuja Cement and anotherl observed as under: “17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a peried when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Foxty-‘second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternativeremedy has been considered to be a rule of self—imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a‘ rule of law. Despite the existence of alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of description of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it 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 thereiis an adequate efficacious alternative remedymlf somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should not ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. V 21. In GVerappa Pillaz‘ v. Roman & Roman Ltd, CCE v. Dunlap India Ltd, Ramendrq Ktshore Biswas v. State of Trzpura, Shiv Gander Anna Patil v. State ofiMahamsI/itra, CA. Abraham v. I.T.O, Titaghm' Paper Mills C0. Ltd. v. State of Orissa,‘ HBGandhi ,v. Gopz‘nath & Sons, Whirlpool Catpn. V. Registrar of Trademarks, Tin Plate Co. offndz'a Ltd. v. State ofBihar, Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, amt Punjab Nqtional Bank v. O.C.Krislman, this Court had held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy befOre resorting to writ jurisdiction:" ‘ Further applying the’said ratio in the matter of U.P. Stare Spinning C0. Ltd. v. RSPandey and anotherz, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed. as under: ‘ ”21. In UPState Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Selu Nigam S. Karmachari‘ Sanglt, it 'was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the. statute, the High Court should not deviate ii‘orn 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 _ t (2005) 6 soc 499 2 £2005) 8 scc 264 @ ‘ remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect or the debisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakam Tzikai'am Nz’kam v. Municipal Corpn. Of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India V. VEjai E. V. Eldre z " In another iatest decision on the concept of maintainability of writ petition Vis-ét—Vis availability of alternative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter of Secy., U.P.High School & Intermediaz‘e Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K.Lal3, observed as under "4. From the records it is borne out that the question as to 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 appellate Court. The writ petitiOn filed by the respondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particularlyjn View of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and should not ordinarily be exercised ifthere is an alternative remedy." 7. This Court, in the matter of Chandrika Prasad Sahu & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, in W.P.(S) No. 4597 of 2008, vide order dated observed as under: “9. A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarch of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory—remedy before resorting to the writ jurisdiction, except ivhen a very strong case is made out for making a departure.” 8. Applying the well:settled principles of law on the issue of availability of alternative 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, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy available to them under the provisions of law, if so advised. l Mt Sdl- Satish K. Agniho’tri l i r Judge .I 3 (2007) 2 SCC 216 :