HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4492 of2007 PETITIONER M/s. Kothari Panels, (A Partnership Firm), Birgaon, Raipur, Through its Partner, Raj D.Kothari, S/o D.M.Kothari,‘ Aged about 39 yeam, R/o E-2, Farishta Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS, : l. State of Chhattisgaxh, Through the Secretary, Forest Depanment, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist: Raipur ~ (C.G.) 2. The Divisional Forest omcer, Raipur Forest Division, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrl. J.‘ Present: Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the petitioner. V Shri S.K.Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 14m day of November, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the imyugned order dated 29.06.2007 has been passed by the respondent No. 2, Divisional Forest Omcer, Raipur Division, in exercise of its power under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinaiier referred to as “the Adhiniyam, 1984”). Leamed counsel iimher submits that the Divisional Forest Oii‘icer has exercised’its power wrongly as according to Annexure P/3, the concerning unit is not saw mill but Veneer Peeling Machine . l .Umt. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, there is an availability of statutory appeal under section 12(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1984 against any order passed by the forest omcer. Thus, in view of the fact that an ehective statutory alternative remedy is available, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissedv However, libeity is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the provisions ofthe Adhiniyam, 1984. In the event, an appeal is preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1984, the period spent in the High Court may be considered for eondonation ofdelay. ; “Xx—«m Sd/. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge