Tt^^ w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. ^^A?, /2010 PETITIONER: / ^^ ^^" ^•<^y' ^\^ ?^w-^ ">••••" VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1, ^^^e' ^' 2. Mathura Prasad Ka^hyap S/o Sri Bedilal Kashyap, Aged) about 54 years, Present working as a" R.I. Office of the Tahsil Bllaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgafh Through.: The Secretafy Revenue Department Bhawan, Mantralaya (C.G.) D.K.S. Raipur Commissioner of Lands Records of Chhattisgaili, Gandhi Chowk Raipur, Tahsil & Di^trict Raipur (C.G.) / 3. The Commissioner Bilaspur Pivision Revenue Department BUaspur(C.G.) /4. The District CoUector Bilaspyr, District Bilaspur (C.G. ) / 5. Office of the Additional Collector, Land Records Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(C.G.) (^ ^6. Tahsildar, Bilaspur Tahsil Bilaspur Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA o: ~T~ 'S^ ^ww^, ^Tii'y^Ko, f®|<r)j^^< *SI*8CTS S9»HT^ S...IAJ) .^8^jR> "•^ 200 STI^T 'v^v (^?^«<<^r) ^T^l ^T ^i4i WT W^ Sti*ij<sft \, ^RHW ^fi^r 3?T^?r SB : Hon'ble Shri rvianindra Mohart ^NN *iifr«riT^* "fe^ <r»l^l< ^3TRP?3iT^T Shrivastava,^. 24-QS-2010 Shri S.K.Dadsen-d, counsei foij the petitioner. Shri vinod Tekarn, Panel L|avyyer for the State / respondents on advance copy. By this petition, the petitione| -vaiidity of order dated 11/6/2010 (Af been placed under suspension. Submission of learned coun4 has. calied in questlon, the iegality' and inexure P/1) by which the petltioner has ^ei for the petitioner is that even though the petitioner was not responsibie f^r the aileged itTeguiarities in his dutles. he has been placed under suspen; iearned counsei for respondents is| >ion. On the other hand, submission of that there exists a statutory efficacious aiternauve rernedy of fiiing appeai 4idertne provisions ofC.G. Civli Servlces (Ciassifjcation, Control and Appea rernedy of appeal petltioner has app| |) Ruies, 1966 and "wjthout avalEiny the roached this Court,, Petitioner is a Government ^ervant and therefore he has the retTiedy to file appeai against the order of s^spension as pfovided under the C.G. CMi Serv-ices (Ciassification, Controi a -id Appeai) Ruies, T»66. It is trite that jurisdiction under Articie 226 woul^ not be invoked vvhere there exists an efflcacious aitemative remedy. Fr^m the grounds ralsed In the petition, l do not find that there is any ailegation of power and there is no materiai to this stage. Petltloner wouia8 be at ^fwant ofjurisdlctlon or nialaflde exerclse ;supportthesar?ie. In tnis vievv of the rnatter, i -^m not Inciined to entertaln this petition at Ibeity to work out rernedy of flilng sta.tutory , <R^I <W^—FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. \^.^^/ "-:1^S£-78 'S'oST "qi<41(rl^, ^tll'H^IS, [s<<ni-(-l^< -^...Hf.&.')..^;......3.^.sll!. ^ww^ ^q^,--•----•-•••--•••••••••-—-'^ 200 3T^T TT^^ ( ^I^^T) 3TI^T ^T R^icfr) TT2TF ^TT^T 9h^i^ Dyypli F^TTWHf^3Tf^T -a- appeai before the competent author|ity. VVith the aforesaid iibefly, the petluon is finajly a'isposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge <sM^i<n^1i "HR^ff ^f fe^ <F3i<^i< ^:T3TRW3T!^T