‘wc. §*§ Cr“: ? SF SHHATT2$GARH : E§L§5§§UR WmEaiztonig‘ é §5§§ c§ 2W8 $e’iizmrxaf Lamam Qavers SA. :‘v’iui‘an Lai Koi. a ed acwt 38 ysa: eccumiion yamhaya‘: c w“; are$eéy ' : _ Panckayax Earhm a-maae warms Ociggc anakpur, m‘mi §narai§3un - de rsus Smie of Chhgti§sgam €hi'ough Kev airary Vém3tv cf Panahayai, W v< b mawam Ra m ir (6%}. M A 3' D( CU 4E ; Coi cmi @nya, Sistt. Kwiya n3e? Exeuudva Q men Jwpad Famhayat, Eharazpwi ”0:511. Kariya The Sarpanch, ${~m F’anchayai Barmri, Tami: Bharamaz', GES‘K. Kcriya 'fu !"“G\ ,1. $udha Shamkar Tripatbi, 3/0. Ambika amsad Tymahi agM abeut 35 years, (Io Wage Ba "10: iahséi Bhamfgwx 3,5. 4 ”emia {CC ? P¢ff§m L Rde‘r Arzics‘e 228 af ihe Censzszuhm 9f Erldia) $3 iwm’ ‘ iwm8aiasr iiiamhm’a d pet 10m is aggrievea? by éhe awe,” dated '§2-Q$-2008 PH} passed by the Samaa’mh, 53mm Panchavai‘ Bafhcrh Janpad armhaya: 8 evamur D1? riouya a” he bass Gf me owe" of “she 3w {2 “swag, Ju‘ce? {Raven e) , whereny he eezisoner was removed “ (I;e’Vm (D @fegerist : Mr Kama na rm comse forme pa? mar Ms Sums. Jam PareiLawarfhs’knemsmmients Ne 3f Sam. Mi A$hei< 5‘41I'W1ai<ar cw "sei f0, the resyoncleni No.5. My. ag Kaecwa rmmsew’wdmremwider‘atbwa @ $aéu. GER iPa$$ea :3 E: is 25m ““93; e?’ Fehmary, 29%} a‘né {Annexwe— w E S [\J 2) Sewer) 91 0f :he Chhattisgam Panchav‘at Rai Adhmiyam. 19% (fer short “fhe r’fidhimyamg 1%3") read wiih Rub 3 0f the Chhatfisgarh Panchaya‘ts (Appea! arid Revision} Ru§es €995 {for shor? "fhe Rufes, 19595? pmvides ma* agaInS'i me order of t‘1e Svb Dgvlslon G‘me {Revenue}, appea§ is mamtamabEe to i’ne Coi§eciot 3} Be tWa: as at ray, without gsma mto me m cf ihe case, l havé found ‘Ihat statuio‘ry agpeimie gramswn is aaeqaaaie 9%eaiévg arzd efficaciotis were gs rm feasc‘; m exemse fismewn K: favoui a? * a peiiiianef when the abcve statutarv appega’ie forum is avawme. 4) (3': he c: xes’iio‘z c? avaaiamhy o “Lemaiive mnedy, ma Han Sup me Court in 5%aie 0f HP aim? Gmem v. Gujarat Ambaga $ement amd amihei‘i sb$9rveci as under: “1?. We shaii fifsi dea§ with the piea regamimg alternative {emedy as raised by the appeiiant Siam. Exaept for a perms} when Ar‘ic‘ 226 was amended by ihe Cenatitution Hug-second eadment‘) Act, ,£76, the power :eiamg t0 aiemaiive remeciy has been censidered m be a ruie c“ self-imposed iém§tzzi§0n it is essent§a§§y a .rua‘e cf ec§§ey, cenveMenre and discret§on awe never a me of iaw Desei‘ge ige exisi‘ nee a? an a‘emative remed" if ;s Wham the jurEsdiet§Qn 0f disuretmn a. ,ne Hxgn Ccum Ia ggant feiief under Arkme 226 of the Const§tut§on A: the same 'l'éme i? canvo’: be iost s‘qm of [mat t‘eoua’w the ma*te' mama ‘0 aa aPer, ia‘twe remedy has mihmg $0 0:2 Mm ‘me wesmcwn of ére case, normaxiy *me Hign Cesn mead net interfeae *f there 1s an adeguate effirsadoue aiéerratwe reriedy §f sen‘ebedy appmaches ‘f’ie r-irae mar? Without av meg *he akema‘sve re. .edv “rovr‘iee m agz‘ Com skeu%a ensure ihaL he has a, de ow: a strong case 03' than there exist grand grounds t9 mveke the extraordinafy ju¥§sdieiien 2?. in €31 Veerappa P§fia v Raman 8: Ramaa Ltd CCE v. Dmfoplndia etd‘ amer Kief‘ore swee v. Sfee o Tnpura Shivgonda Mme Paw; v Siafe 5f Mabarashva f‘fi 413mm,”? 1/, ITG THeg’mr Peeer Wiiiia L'O 1 TG 1/ bYaZ’: OI U?ISSa, f1 5 vafFGi‘): VS bépl Nam erd Sons Whiripooi Lorpn V Reg1sz’rar of We Marks Tm P’az‘e CO cf ‘nd‘a Jd v fe?e of Bmar, Seeefa Dew v. despel bmgh and Puryab Naiionei Beak v. 0.8, Kitishnan, this Court hem} that where hiei’emhy 97' gpeais §e prewded by %.he sie‘iuie‘ parw' must exhaust the steiu’iory {emedies befm'e resemng +9 Wt lurbdiehon ” m (J3 5) Further, appiying the said ratio in UP. Siate Spinning Ce. Lia. vs. RS, .9andey and anatherz‘ {he Hm’bée Supmme Court wgewed a5 under: “24;. m UP. State Eridge Cemn. Ltd. v. UR Rajya Setu. N§gam $.Karmachar§ Sangh, it was hem that when the dispute reiaies i0 enfoicemeni of a right m' obiigation undei’ the Siatuie and Specific remeéy is, therefore, previded Lime the eéaiu'ze, the High Couii shouid not deviate fmm éiae geneiai View and interfere wider Artieie 226 excegt when a very stmng ease i5 made out for making a depariure‘ ‘i'he pefson who insiste upon such remeciy can avaii of the pi'ccess as previded urzder the steiute. To the same effeci: we the decieions m Premiei Aigiomobiies Ltd. v. Kamiekar Shentaram Wedke, Rajasiiian SR‘m v. Krishna Kant, $henérekani Tekarem Nikem v. Menécipei Caren. e§ Ahmedabad and in Seeders indie vs. Vijai EV. "irii'eri “ 8) in anoii'ier decision on the concept of mainiairiabiii’iy 0f wrii petition vis-é—vis aveiiabiiity of aiiemative remedv, the Hon5bie Suereme Court n 5ecy. UP. High Schaoi & ia’riermediaie Eéucaiion! Aiiahaiym 8a anoiher v EK Leia, observeri as under: n4r Frem the records it is borne out that tire ques’iion astc whether the respancient has a iegai right ta eiter his date of birth resorded in the certiticate granted by the Boatd was pending consideration before the anneiia’te Court. The writ neti‘iion tiied by the respondent shouid, therefore, not have been entertained petticuieny in new of the fact that the appeai thereageinst was penciing. Writ juriso’iction is discretionary jurisdiction and shouid not ordinariiy be exeroisett if t'nere is an atteinetive temeciy.” 3") A common thread running into the dicta Said down ’oy the Hon’bte Supreme Court in the aforementioned oases is that normatiy the Htgn Court snouid not intertei'e i tnere is an adequate efficacious atternative temedy Where hieratcny of appeais is provinted by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ iurtsdtotion, excee‘t when a very strong case is made out to? making a denartote. 8‘; This Court also in Chancirika Prasad eahu anct otners Vs. gtate of Chhattisgarh anti others (Writ Petition (SE No. 4597 of 2008), Cieoictect on 28-8—2G08, reiying on various decisions of i-ion‘bie Suoreme Court on the question of aiternative remedy, observed that "normaiiy the High Court shouid not interfere if there is an adequate, eiticacious, aiternative remedy Where hierarchy of appeais is provided by the statute, party must exhaust 2 (zoos) a soc 264 .3 (2am) 2 soc 216 f the siai’utsry é'emedy before a'esartiag to writ juréséimion, exceg‘z when a very strong case is macie oui far making a depar‘ius’e. g) In View of the foregoing, Withou? expressing aay cemicm or! men'ts, :his pe$3tioa is dismissed as ne": mamtainabie a’t the adm§ssion siege i%se%i However, iiberty is reserved to the petii§ener 20 $a§<e recourse t0 the qréernative séatu‘rory ferum that may be avairabie to the petiikaner eer the grovisione of law, if 5e advrsed. -;e {g g3 un 30) Consequentiy, air i‘ne pendmg appiieetioris siand disposeci cf. ‘ Sd/— é :Satish K. Agnihotn . r Judge