3> EK§¥§ {KW R? (H? CE H A'lvi‘i MwA RE Av? §5 § LASm} WRM‘ PET?1’1‘JOL\I (S‘; N0. 4282 0f2€2m§ E’ETH‘IONER : Ku. NiSha Khapde D/Q kadezr Dev Khapch agtzd abaut 26 waits, C/r; Sim Pumshettam F2111}, Bhmera, Kanken Dim. Kanker. VERSUS Siam of Chhamsgarh ’i‘hzmzgh the Secréfary; Departmmt cf Famhayai & Sam-£1"; Vikai; Denariment. DKéi Bhavan, Mammlaym Raipur {CG} Director, Directora‘ie Pkmchay&t Evam Samaj Sew, Raiwr (Chhattisgai‘h) 3. Co§iact01z District Uttm‘ Bastar Kanker {Cl/limitisgarh) 4n Chief Executive- Omcen Ma Pazxshziyaa District Ui‘kar Bastaa' Kaiiksg‘ (Ck&1atti&garh) W a ET FETI'HQN UNBER AR’E’riCLE 226 OF 151-313 CGN S’E‘YI‘UHUN 0? EJ‘L'E'J.A RESHDNDENTS tJx $3: Hml’Efm Sm'i Satish ix Awaimlm. .3. Pz‘esem: $hri Prashant Misha‘zg A§vecate for the paiitioner. 8hr“; Ami: Sam G-iwgmimm Advxycaie ff}: the Sia“ wims-m ,J + Na. i 1 m 3. t “s GRAL ORDER (Passed m'i‘ém day 6f A1Eéu$ 2008) Learned couase‘ aypearmg for the peti£éoner sgbmi'ts that {he espondént-authorities have faila-i to umiersiwci the pmport oftha erder Whxereiak b6€i§m passing $3.16 imgmgned orderS ciated 2iui20$8 f Annexms W1) principles ofnamrai iustjce was rsquired :0 be compiiad Wiih. it 1\ {imher contemied that shim! cause moiise was issutad cm 0m gonad and {he impugneai Ofders damd 2313520638 (Annewm P/ 1) W$re {gassed on déi3‘émm gmumi NC- :siltiw-causa-Imtica m‘ oppommii'y 0f hearing was aiforcied ii) me ageti‘iionar in ‘fesgmct 0f ’ihe ga‘eund, whia‘th was iakx'm ibr passing Em: inwugrsed (mien Be. that as ii may, Siace it énvoiveS qaestien 0f factg whi§h can be coalsidereii ongy by ih§ apyeihta a!sih0ré‘i§g mus, ihis ww is m2: we of Ehe case wherein depanure fmm Immal ruie of feszmmg m skatutow femm, be aKlawaé" rn r U1 )e uuequon 01 avaxiabaix‘iv of aitemafiva :‘emedy, éhi: Howble Sumemé: Gear: ii} the mater m" Same «:Affi’f". and ()i'hers v. Gwjamt’ Ambug’a Cemem,‘ and worker}, obserwa‘ as undsr: v*17. We ska}? first dsa3 with we niea recwi‘iimg aka-‘mmive ya‘im'SLIV men; by the appeiiam $iau; Lmupt {a}? a paim} when Mick? 226 was amenéeg by ma Consiimiiam {E3‘:)*“tv- wc‘md Agneiidmeiat} Aat, E§?6, i116 pxwwar mhimg a'itemaiive remeaiy has. hem comitiered t0 m a mie of «Af- hngQsed limimtion. It xa ebswiid y a wk 0f gum» convenience and discretion and never c, wk? of aw D4» :6 thw exiStexlca 0f am altei‘ilatiw remady, 1; r. wrhm :lxa jurisclictioia 0f discrstion of the iiigh Cami t1) gnu/p Whw Liiidéi“ Aiiicia 226- 0f tbs} Cx‘ms‘tii' mm. A; Jm wing time r camel bs 1031: sight of that ‘ihough the mAiier reimmg 10 an ‘iiiematwg: mmséy ‘MS iwthlmg m d0 with €133 §uria3ictiw 0f the case, normaliy iha High Cam s§10u1d mm in: riLere I {here is an adeqaate effcampug altemative remedy. If Sumebauy approaches the Hi§1 Loufi Withaui avai§in6 the al’tem2tive mm‘dv movicéed ”1e High Cezm shank: "mMi‘e um hs h» *Imle 011i a smmc LaQe or ma there ex1si 000.1 oro nag to m vwka Ll e eximordméiy ‘umdictw‘ £1" H1 «mVeemppu Riki v. Rczmmz Kr. Ramzm Lid; CCEg‘ v " Dwiap fr Lid; Ramem’rcz Kismv‘e Biswas v. Stafe of 7%":imira‘ Shivgona’a Anna Pafii v. Smfe of Maharashtra; ~7.‘4Abi*alzm?i V. ITO, Tuugimr FabeIM'IEZS Ct}. Lid v. Smze 0f Orissa: H8.Gamfhi v. L'kvpz‘ Naif? zmcf Sam: Whirlpaai Fwy: v. R r of Tradt; Mark, nu 1 hm: C0. ()ffndiq Rmr. Sé'aeeia Dev: v, mspal Szrzgh mad Punjab ’ Bmzk v. QCJfrismmrt, Qiis Cmm MM mat Wham Eerzrrchy of zigmeais is prm/ided by the smmie, yariy must remadies before re-SOI'iiilg m Wig?” jmisdiction. " Farther, applying t‘ge zmi ram) m the mcmer of UP Wife New/11720 (x) Lid. v. RSPandey mad amomerz, the Supmme Cam observed aS under: "1 n UH ‘ma‘e Be ? l za’ v (fPf€a]}a .Setu pkgem gKtg’i‘iiM mm guru“ A was he a mat whee tile dispute ieiaies m egfmcemem 01 nghi or obiigathm under ihe Qwiue am Seecifk 'i‘emegiy is, Therefm‘e, provided mlde‘r the qiatu’te‘ ihe High Court Sho’u’d myt deviate §§‘om the ceaerai WW em: H cue“; Ming: Ad “vie 24.5 eKeeyt Wheil a Kiel v gimme acme 1s matie 011i tor makme deparime ihe perxm whe mems upon sud} Lenledy um «1mm cf ‘11:: pio ex ute 10 ihe mm, sued a e me ei' umabwe Lm. v. Rumleimr ri‘ QA‘JUJ} (2005‘ 8 bLV 264 ¢ a VJ 1 ; ag L ' m my “ d "m m. ; m -3- Shaiwaram Wadke. Raiasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Ckmicfrakaigr Tzikaram Nikam v. M’ i Com/*3. of Ahmedabad amd in Scoaz‘ers Mdz'a v. Wjal' F VEMre . " 5. 1:1 anether decision on the concept of maimainabi§ty 0f writ peiition Vis-é—Vis avajIabiEiiy of aitamative ramady, {Em $upreme Couri in ihe mama? of Secv. UP. High Schoal & f‘rgfermea‘z‘ai’e Educm‘wn. Allahabad & amether v. EKLaf, observed a3 under: ”‘4. From ”dry: memos it is homo out ihaj Eh»: quegtion agio Wheihm’ tho i‘sspomiam ham 2: Rega'n nigh; i0 zmef his liaie of bmh recordod if: aiqe cenifma‘te granted by the Board was g comit‘m‘ion before the apwilate C Tiw Wgit oeion fileo by tho re$p011dent should, ‘treore, not ve 436 emmfainad gamwiafi m of 1116 mt appemi h‘lereagait was yending. Writ rdictn. is $ixc1‘e‘ii021ai'y jurisdicon and Shouki mi uréiii’‘ be exerced there s 2m aliemaiive remedy.” 6n A comn t§1read mommg o he dict aid «imam y e Sumeme C011 in the oremeioned ces is hat rma the High Court ‘shouki not aerfere re i5 a acieouate fzowus ematéve yemedy where §aiomrchy of appea is providmi y the staéuie, pty m éwf ha n. our oftiie etioners. owever, ieifiy is reserved to the petiiiioner to {e recourse to aitemaiive staiui‘ory foru raising a“ the grounds, avaiiebie to the petitioner. if so adviseé. No order asto oosts“ Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge u a g4: dm at ouri wa ;. m y View fact a He ns juisio ti mry is if i mo mi t a l b fh 0 afnt aS { nolly m 3f the n efac alt ls b ar mu exust {he s’tatory remey bore resorting to Wm jurisdiction, excepi when a very sfrong case is made oui or makg éepare. ’ Applying the weii-seitiier}. iicia iaié down y e Supreme €0’oi"; on e issue avaab‘i of ernative remedy to The acts th oe, his oetiiio is dismisse as iioi; maeabie no strox mse as been maoe om. or exercise of emiraordinayy discretry jui‘istiiction in ftv pit H ib St ha iu é ef f in a fm 7 i b m m of iiiitv alt f of e os t n d intm ss ig h f iona ke m,