IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ w.P.(C).No. $69 /2o11 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: ganti Devi (Secretary, Jai Durge Swa Sahayata Samooh) aged ~ /, about 27 years, Wife of Girdhari Lal Kashyap, R/o. Village Munund, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. / State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Women and Child Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] 2. F Collector, District Janjgir— Champa [C.G.] 3. [gub Divisional ' Magistrate, Janjgir, District Jagnjgir—Champa [C.G.] 4. Chief Executive Ofiicer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir—Champa (C.G.), M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.859 OF 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri J.P. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S‘K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. O R D E R (Passed on this 12‘" day of September, 201 1) Heard learn‘ed counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 29—2006 (Annexure ~ P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir—Champa and further seeks a direction to reiease the entire due amount of Rs.3500/— incurred by the petitioner in running the mid-day~meal scheme. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 16-1-2006 the petitioner's organization was granted permission to operate the mid—day—meal scheme and accordingly, the petitioner was operating the same in accordance with the guidelines prescribedvby the respondent authorities from time to time, However, all of a sudden without affording an opportunity of hearing and without following the basic principles of natural justice, by order dated 2-9-2006 the mid‘day—meal scheme given to the petitioner has been cancelled in an illegal and arbitrary manner, Even before canceling the scheme, the expenses incurred by the petitioner have not been released 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made several requests before the respondent authorities, but the same have not yielded any result in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner preferred a suit being PETITIONFR Kanti Devi Versus RESPONDENTS Versus civi! suit No.20—B/2006 before the Court of Second Civil Judge Ciass — II, Janjgir, which was dismissed by order dated 20—7-2009 (Annexure - P/9) on the ground of non—compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal being civil appeal No.3-B/2009, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir~Champa, by order dated 11—11-2010 (Annexure — P/8) by maintaining the order passed by the Second Civil Judge Class — ll, Janjgir. Thus. this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned order passed by the’ respondent authorities and submits that against the order dated 2—9-2006 passed by the respondent No,4, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the Director (Panchayat), but without availing the said alternative remedy has straightaway approached this Court. The petition also suffers from unexplained delay and laches, because the impugned order was passed on 2—9-2006 whereas the present petition was filed on 1-2—2011. The delay has not been properly explained by giving sufficient and cogent reasons. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the i petition may be dismissed. The direction for payment of a sum of Rs.3,500/- was agitated by the petitioner before the Civil Court, which was dismissed and‘ thereafter, an appeal filed'before the Additional District Judge, ' Janjgir-Champa, was also dismissed by order dated 11-11-2010. Thus; the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same issue before this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia. So far as challenge to the legality and validity of the order dated 2—9-2006 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir-Champa is concerned, the alternative statutory forum of approaching the Director (Panchayat) is available. The petitioner without taking recourse to statutory aiternative forum‘ has filed this petition. it is well settled principle of law that the availability of statutory forum cannot be given a go-bye unless some exceptional circumstances arise. ln the case on hand, nothing exceptional to invoke jurisdiction of this Couit directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is pleaded or established. Thus, on that ground also the petition fails. ln the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse of statutory forum that may be available to him under the provisions of law, if so advised. 10. There shall be no order asto costs. wwww Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge