r- '^'^t ^•-"^"S')^ .•••'*1:t^S>.-*T**' ^s^^" ^^^t^^--"" •^^ ^-••"" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION. NO^^QF 2006 / -Pt a-Bi £i. -IV/,/ BETWEEN airHn^: •ftasad Sahu, aecd-abeut- dttit uf Vill. d Posfr Di ^L tro, reoidcnt-uf^Villa.gc ^effid ^ Posfr Dong ,-g^^^gga -P.S.Baloda T-ahsil and District Janjgir Champa (CGj ^'.Wesidert-of- laga^ ^^yjh^pongari, Block ^&^^&^ s&^—-^/° Ji^il^oaA. Sft^^^ S^k^-&yJ <da£vJ- 3SyiA^^u^(~^^J~-^ v,' fi $>oAt-" SIOI^A^^ 0(ocA- 8cjc<=ta- fi S- fixiloe^s- PETITIONER T^l ^vJL &,A^-^- ^^vyg^ Cl^^^ ^6'^} AND p^^^- ^ (^2^3^^ ^v ^H^J^^ / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, ^' Through the Secretaiy Department of Food Public Distribution, Mantralay, D.K.S.Building, Raipur (CG). -- 2. The Collector, District Janjgir Champa (CG). / 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa (CG). 4. Mamta Swa Sahayata Samuh Dongari, Village and Post Dongari Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (CG). RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA o r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETIT10NER WRlT_PETmON Np_278lQf2006 : Maa Sarai Shrangarini Dei Swa Sahayata Samuh Dongari * VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRLTPETITION_UNDER_ARTtCLE_226/22LQF_THE_CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the pefitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 28th day QfAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31/01/2006 (Annexure P/5) whereby the fair price shop has been allotted to the respondent No.4. 3. Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 provides for statutory appeal before the Collector/Additional Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. There is no reason to entertain this petition when the statutory forum is available to the petitioner. The remedy is effective and efficacious. 4. The law is well settled in this aspects. This Court in Maa Sharda Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Pratappur Vs. StateofC.G. & Others , observed as under:- "3. Without resorting to the statutory forum, the petitioner has rushed to this Court on the ground that since no notice was given, it is ntit necessary to take recourse to statutory alternative forum. Since the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by the appellate forum expeditiously and efficiently, this ' 200S (3) C.G.L.J. 482 petition isnot maintainabte under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. 4. It is trite a law that a departure from general rule may be made only in exceptional cases. This is not an exceptional or special case wherein departure from normal rule i.e. taking recourse to alternative statutory forum, be made. There is no 'reason to entertain this petition directly when the petitioner has not exhausted all the statutory appellate remedy available to him. 5. Normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious 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 departure. (See State of H.P. _and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and anothe^, U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another^ and Secy. U.P. High School <S Intennediate Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K.Lalf, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others , M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan Khane and Popcom Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another^)." 5. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory forum, that may be available to him, underthe provisions of law, ifso advised. So far as, limitation period is concerned, as the matter is pending consideration the limitation period shall be computed from the date ofpassing ofthis order. Gowri 2 (2005) 6 SCC 499 3 (2005) 8 SCC 264 4 (2007)23cc 216 '.(2007) 8 SCC 338 ''AIR2007SC3153 7 (2007) 9 SCC 593 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotn Judge