^ H1GH CO'URT OF CHHATTlSa^RH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) • No. 3126 of20()g pF^rrnoNER RESPONDENT8 2. 3. Ku. Chandrika Dhra'w D/o Shri Raniu Ram Dliruw, aged about 31 years, Sliiksha Ka.nm' Grade-II, Goveniment Middle School^ Navadabri (Aadim Jati • Kolyan Vibhag), Janpad Panchayat, Narharpu, Districi - Kaiiker (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through.: Secrelarv', Pasichayat aiid Rural Developaiejit, Mantralaya, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Triba! Welfare Ma.ntrai.aya, Raipur (C.,G») Tiie Ciiief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker(C.G.) The . Chief Executive Officer, Jaepad Pasichayat Narharpur, District ~ North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Wim'PElTI'lQN UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THE CONSTIIVnON QF :[NDIA SB: Hoii*We Siiri Satisit,K.Agmiiotn,_J. Present: 8'hri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. - .Sliii Aruii Sao, Goveimiiei&t Advocate fbr the. State/Tesponderits 1 and 2. ORALORttER (Passed onT9tEMda7^f~August, 2008) l/ Leariied counsel appea.rin.g for the petitioner submits th.at the , respoiident-aufhorities liave failed to underst.and the puxport. of'tlie order whereia, before passmg' the. impugsied orders dated 23.05.2008 (Aniiexure P/l), prmciples of iiatyral justice was required to be complied v</i.th, It is further contende'd that show cause notice was issued on one .gi'ound aiid the impugiied orders dated'23,05/2008 (Amiexure P/l) were passed oo differenl ground, No show-cause-notice or opportuiiity of heariiig was afforded to the petitioner in respect of the gromid, whi.ch was taken fbr pa.ssin,g the impiigjied order. 2. Be that as it may, since i:t iiwolves question of facts which can. be considered oiily'by tlie appellate authority, Aus, this case m not one of the ca.se wherein departure from nomial rule of resorting to statutory fomm, be allowed^ -2- ^x 3. Oii the question of availability of altemative remedy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the of State qf H.P. and ofhers .v. Oiijarat Ambzija Cement and another^., obs^Tved as imder: "17. We shall first-deal wilfa the plea regarding. altemative remedy as rais'ed by the a.ppella.nt State. Except for a period' wh.cn 'Ailicle 226 was amended bv the Coiistitutioe (Fortv- second Anieiidmeiit) Act, 1.976, the powor relatmg to altemative remedy has been considered to be a role of self- iiiiposed Imiitation. It is essentially a mle of policy, convemence and discretion and.never a rule oflaw. Despite the existence of aii alteniative -remedy, it is.withm th© jurisdiction of'discretion of the IIigh. Court- to gi'a.nt relie.f irnder /^rticie 226 ofthe Constitutioii. Al tlie same time- it ca,rmot be lost sight of.that though. the matter rcslatiag to an aiteniativc remedy.has iiothiiig to do with the ju'risdidion of fhe case, iiormally tbe High Co'urt Bhould n.ot interfere ifthere is aii adequate eificadous altemative reiiiedy. If somebody approaches the High Court withoat avai3.mg th,e altemative remedy pro'vided 'the IIigh.Co'art shoiild eiisure •that.h.e has made out a strong case or that there exist good groimds to iiwoke tlie exlraordmaryjimsdictioii. 21, In Gyeerappa Pilla v. Ram.an & Ramcm ,LM; CC£t v. Dunlop India Ltd.; P.amenclra Kishore Biswas v. -State of Tripura, Shivgonda Anna Patii v. State of. Mahiirashtra; CAAbraham v. ITO, Titaghur Paper Mflls Co. Ltdv. State of Orissa; H.B.Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons;- Whirlpool Corprh v. P.egistrar ofTradeMarks; Tm Plate Co. qflncha Ltd v.State ofBihar^SheelaDevi v. Jcispal Singh and Punjab Natiwial Bcmk v, O.C.Kriskncm, this Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party mu^t exliaust the statzitory remedies before resortmg to writ jurisdiction. " 4. Further, applying the said ratio ie the mattCT of LLP.State Spmmng Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another1, the Supreme Court observed as under: "21. ln U.P.Sta.te Bridge Comn. Ltd.. v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karmachari Sangh, it was faeld that when thc dispute relates to eBfbrcement of a right or obligation under the statute aiid Bpedfic remedy is, therefore,- provided mider the statute, the High Court should not deviate from. th.e general view d iiiterfere' uiider Aticie 226 eKcept wheti a veiy strong ca.se is m.ade out for makmg a departure.. 'llie person. wlio upoii sach remedy can avail of 'the process as provided a.mter th.e statule. To th.e same effect are the decisioiis in Premier Automobiles . Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram V/adke, B.ajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant Cliandrakant Tukaram N'ikam v. Municip^ Cofpn. of A.hmedaba.d and m Scooters India v. 'Vijai E.V.Eldred. "> 1(2005)6SCC499 2(2005)8SCC264 -3- ^ ^^i-., Amil 5» In aii.other decisiora on. the concept of maintamability ofwrit petitioD. vis-a-vis a.vailability of altemative remedy, the 8'apreme Court m. the . matt.er ofSecy. (1P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & wiother v. H.K.La13., observed a.s under: "'4. From. the records it is bome o'at that the q'uestion. asto whether the respoiideiit has a legal riglit to. alter his date of birth recorded m the certi.ficate graiited by the Board was pendiiig consideratioii before the appellate Court. The writ petition liled by the respondem'. should, therefore, n,ot ha.ve been eiitertamed particularly iii vie.w of the fect that the appeal thereagam^t 'was pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretioriary jurisdictiosi ai&d should not ordmarily be exercised ifthere i.s an altemative rem.edy/' 6. A, common. thread ninmng irto the dicta laid dowsi by the Supreme Court m the aforementioned cases is that noiTaally the H'igh Court should not interfere if fhere is an. ade.quate efllcacious altemative • remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhau^t the statutoi'y remedy befbre resorting'to writj'arisdiction, except when a ven^ stroiig case is made out for making a departure^ 7. Applying the well-settled dicta la.id do-^/n by the Supreme Court. o.e the issue of ava.ila.bility of alt.emati.ve remedy to the facte of llie ca.se, •feis petition is dismissed as not mamta.ma.bl.e as no sti'on.g case has been m.ade oirt for exercise of extraordina.ry discretionaiy Jiirisdiction .m favour ofthe petitioners. However, liberty is reserved to the petiti.on.er to take recourse to altem.ative statutoiy fomm, raismg all the groimds, available to the pctitioner, i,fso advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge "'(2007) 2 SCC 216