A}? W HIGH CUUR’I‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (ClNo. 4414 of 2008 PETITIONER PACL India Ltd. A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur, Rajsthan, and corporate office at 28, 7m Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through Shri Rajesh Chaubey, officer (1&P), son of Shri IN. Choubey, aged about 30 years, being the authorized signatory. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, ._. Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Sub Divisional Omcer (Revenue) Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Naib Tehsildar Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS : o: (WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'I‘ION OF INDIA) QB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present z Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL 01mm (Passed on 11‘“ day or August, 2098) l. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 30.12.2006'(Annexure P/l ), passed by the Collector and District \\ Magistrate (Land Records Braneh), Raigarh (CG). He further submits “x 2 that the process ofmutation in the village Natwarpur has been stayed by the Collector, Raipur, i.e. respondent No. 2. Thereafter applications were moved for vacating the stay order dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure P/l), but no action has been taken as on date. He further requests to direct the Collector, Raigarh, to consider and decide the applications of the petitioner, in accordance with law. . Be that as it may, the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ’the Code, 1959') provides for appeal, revision and review under Chapter-V, Section 44. If any order has been passed, which aifects the rights of the petitioner, as the case of the petitioner is, the petitioner can very well approach either to the Commissioner or to the Board of Revenue, under the provisions ofSection 44 of the Code, 1959. . There-is nothing exceptional to invoke discretion in favour of the petitioner when the effective and expeditious remedy is available under the provisions ofthe Code, 1959. . The Supreme Court in the matter of State of HP. and others v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement and anotherl observed as under: "l7. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when V Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule ofself-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule ofpolicy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of description of the High Court to grant reliefunder Article 226 ofthe Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate edicacious altemative remedy. Ifsomebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should not ensure that he has made out a strong ’ "e ~~\_‘(2Me scc 499 Q; case or that there exists good younds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 21. in G. Verappa Pillai v. Raman d’c Raman Ltd, CCE v. Dunlap India Lid, Rarnedra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, Shiv Gonda Anna Patil v. State ofMaharashlra, CA. Abraham v. I.T.O, Titaghur Paper Mills o. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, HBGandhi v. Gopz‘nath & Sons, Whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar of Trademark, Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bz‘har, Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh and Punjab National Bank v. 0.C.Krishnan, this Couxt had held that Where hierarchy of appeals is provided by he statute, patty must exhaust the statutory remedy beoe resorting to writ jurisdiction." 6. Further applying the sai ratio in t matterof U. State Spinning Co. d he P Ltd. v. R.S.Pand6y and anoeiz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed th as under: "21. In U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Selu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, it ws held that when the dispute relates to enforcement ofa right or bligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general View and interfere under Article 226 except wh a very strong case is made out for makin a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect o the decisions in Premier Automobiies Ltd. v. Kamekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chdrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. 0f Ahmedabad and in Scooters Inia v. Vijai E. V. Eldred. " 7. In another latest decision on the concept of maintainability of writ petion vis-a-vis avaibility of alternative remedy, the Supreme Court it la in the matter of Sec. U.P. High.School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K. Lal3, observed as under : "4. From the records it is borne out that the question as to whether the respondent has a legal right to alter his date of birth recorded in the certificate granted by the Board was pending consideration before the appellate Court. The writ petition tiled by the respondent should, therefore, not have been entertained particularly in View of the fact that the appeal thereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy." \'\‘ fstzo\“scc 05) 8 soc 264 21 6 n C , t fr a o en g r l an d 8 Apying the well settled cta laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of alternative remedy to the facté of the case, no case is made out for ming out a departure from normal rule. Thus, this petition is dismisse as not maintainabie, in view of the availability of statutory alternativ rmedy. In the event: the petitioner takes recourse to statutory alternative forum available to him, if any, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, without being influenced by observations, if any, made hereinabove. saz- x l Satish K. Agnihotri‘i Judge l‘ . pl di ak d e e