&Il^te^&ifl^l HIG11COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTtSGARM : BU-ASPUR SINGLE BENCM : Hon'UleShri S.R. Nayak,C.J. Writ PetHionNo. 640 OF 2006 PETEnONER RESPONDENTS M/sShreeNakodalSpatLtel., Near railway crossing Mowa Raipur-492007 ThrouahManager, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, S/o Shri B.N. Tlwari. Aged about 32 ywrs, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Unionoflndia Through Secretary, MinistlytrfRailways NewDellii. 2. ^ ^MUaSi^ Q!ef,S£X!.R3Mway, l-leaclc|uartffl^<Mfice, Bil8®tM.u;^G.G.)^ 3. The<il'iief<3omi'nereialh4anager S.E.C^Railway Bilaspur(e^3.) 4. The Sr. Divlsional Commereial Wtanager.S.E^.Railway, Dtstrict-Bilaspur 5. Goodscterk/stationmaster Uslapur, Dist-Bflaspur a Present: Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, leamed counselfor the petitionsr. ORALORDER (Passed oh7th February, 200C) ^ The complaint brought before thls Court by way of this writ petition could be a complaintthat could be made before <he Tribunal as envisaged under SecUon 36 of ths Railways Act, 1988 (for short the Acf). The dispute broughtbefore the Courtessentially falls within the domain of appreciation of facte; therefpre, it is appropriate that the petitioner, in the flret instance, should workout statutory remedies provided under theAct. sSiis:'-: \d&=to^S=tech;.s^^^_.^^J>: ^ —z-— Wl' There is no justification forthe petitionerto rush toUiis Court underArticle 226 of tfie Constitution without exhausting alternative, efficacious statutory remedtes. On this short ground, 1 decline to entertain ttiis writ petition. It is accordinglY djsmissed. However, it te dlrectedthat ifthe petiUonerflles complaint along with an application (br interlocutoiy order before the Tribunal under Section 36 of ttie Act, it is trustsd that the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate order wittiout much loss of tlme. g. Si-u^