Miwignww wi‘géwww CJ‘L'ZIE L IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition T No. Ck of 2007 in the matter of Petitioner : /‘ (1) Mangal Sponge and Steel Private Limited a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office and works at Main Road Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) through its director Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Mooichand Agrawal aged about 49 years Suresh KumarAgrawai S/o Mooichand Agrawal aged about 49 years resident of Main Road, Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) Director Mangal Sponge and Steel Private Limited Versus : (1) State LevelCommittee / through Additional Director industries L.i.C. Commercial Complex Nivesh Bhavan Second Floor Pandrl, Raipur (C.G.) General Manager, District Industries Centre Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax DKS Mantralaya Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) fut! / (4) Commissioner of Commercia1 Tax Vanijyik Kar Bhawan, a Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Before : Hog'ble The Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Hon'bie High Court of Judicature Chhattisgarh H at Bilasgur. V XI—HC—22 an%HEEHaIH%a WW§MW éawm 8: Hon’oie‘ Mr. Dhirendra Mishra. dd DB : Hon’hle Mr. V.K. $hrivastava 7=2-200? Shri Neelabh Dubey. counsel Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt Heard Petitioners claimed exemptic: 6—1 0-? 994x but the State Levet Com exempticm and rejected the Ciaim oft! and even petitioners‘ review applica decision dated 5‘“ &'6“‘ January, 200 the order passed by the Committee, i appeai before the State Appeiiate FO ie pending. Petitioner bypassing the he grievance has fiied the instant petitic Constitution of india. During the course of argume remedy ie availabie in appeai; there relief. in absence of any material to allow efficacious remedy to the appeli contention of the petitioners, even t which petitioner has already invoked: to step in under Article 226 of the Co With the aforesaid observatio Forum shall decide the petitioners period of six months from the date of Consequently: M.(W4)P.No.8 for the petitioners. Advocate for the State/respondents. 1 in accordance with notification No.112 dated hittee (for brevity “the Committee”) did not allow ie petitioners vide their decision dated too-2005 tion hae been retected by the Committee vide 3. ctatutory remedy of appeal is provided against herefore, feeling aggrieved, the petitionerfiied an rum (for brevity “the Forum”) and the said appeai aring of the aforesaid appeal, for the same n before this Court under Article 225/227 of the 1ts, petitioners’ contention is that no efficacious fore, this petition has been med for efficacious demonstrate how the Forum is handicapped to ants/petitioners it is not permissible to accept the itherwise when a statutory remedy is available, he cannot be aliowed to bypass it and to insist us istitution of lndia. "i. the petition stands disposed of. However, the appeal as early as possible preferably within a receipt of a copy of this orderi 39/07 & i.A,No.918/O7 aiso stand disposed of: Parties are entitled peg”ed cc py of this orderesber..rules2._i\k u Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ' l Qd/_ k Dhirendra Mishra Judge