^ssaa^ -<! J ^A/ "' _/^1y ^'s.^"*''' COURI' OF CQB/ SGARH AT B1LASPUR PETmQNER RESPONDENTS WRH' PET1TION (S) No. 3646 of2008 Kumari Sumaa Sahu, aged 30 vears, Daughter of Radhelal Sahu, Sifc:hha KiuTni Verg-2. Go'.'t. .Pi'iiiiar/ SehocL Post ^iLHtagargh District Kaisker (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Govemnisnt of Clihailisgarii. Thi'ough the Sesretaiy, Panchayat and Uramin VAai3i3 vihhag, Mimstn', D.K.S. Bha^an, Raipiff (C.G.) 2. Chief Exeeutive Ol&cer. Zila Panchayat. District Uttai' Bastiir, • ('C.G.) WRIT PEI'TTiCiN roER AR'riCI.E 226 OF 'THE CONBTri'm'ICiN OF 1NDIA >M 'Present: Shri. Sorakant Venna, Advocate for !the IDetitioiier. Shri AruH Sao, Govemmefit Advocate fi>r the State/respondeuts 1 ms. (Passed oa"lQ5^}ay'3f~August, 2008) .^•^fc ^Leamed counsel appearing fw the petitioner submrts that tae respondent-authorities have failedte understiaid the puspwi af'tlie order wherein, befbre passiag the impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 fAanexure P/l), priudples of natural iustice was reyuired to be complied with. It is fltrther contended that show cause notice was issued oii one ground and tbe impugaed orders dated 23.05.2008 (Acaesiire P/li1 wers passed <m different sround. No show-cause-notice or opporfcimity of heariag was afforded to fhs petiiiciiei' in respect of' fes groimd, whicta was taken i'br passmg ths impugned order. Be thaJ. as it mav, since it involves guestioa of &cts whish can be considered onlv bv fhe appellate aufhoritv- lthus, this case is Tsot ons of •ihe case 'iAsreui departure Irom aoima! role of resortmg tc statiiti)ry fonim. be ailowed. 4. On the uuestion of availabilnv of altemative remedv, the Hmi'ble Supreme Court in fhe aiatter of State of H.P. and others v. Qifarst Ambufa Cement arsd another. observed as under: "17, We shall first deal witfl the plea reearding aitemadvc remedy as raised by the appellant State. Exuept for a periud wfaea Articls 226 was amecded by fhe Constiution (Forty- secoud Amendmeiit) AA 1976, thc powsr rslating lo alteTaaiive remedy has been eonsidered to be a rule of sei.i- imposed !imrtatioa. it is esseutially a cuie of polic^ convenience and disa-etion and never a mlc of law. Despiie the csdstesise of aa altemativs remedy, it is within the junsdiction of discretioa of fhe High Court to sriiat reiisf imder Artiele 226 of the Coiistitiilion. At tlie saiae tims, ii cannot be lost sight of 'that though the maiter relatiRg to xi altemative remedy has nofhiag tu do with 'thc jurisdictio" of the case, normally the High Court should not mterfere ifthere is a0 ade-quate ©ffieacioixsalteniistivsi re-msdy. If somsbody aoisroaches fhe Higii Court withc»ut avaiimg the alterriative remsuy provided the High Court should eiisut'e tliat Iis has made CTJI a strons case or that thers exist good grounds to invoke tlic cxtTaLordisiajTyjurisdictiof!. 21. In (j. I/ee?-uppa Ptiia '". Rtiman & RawaTi LSd.; CCr. v. Dttnhp India Lld.; Rssmeysdra Kishore Biswas v. State of Trimira. Shtveonda Anna Palii v. Sfate of' Maharashtra; C.A.Abmhcfn v. ITO, TitagmfPaper Mslls Co. Ltd v. State of Orissa: H.B.Gandhs v. Gopi NaS'i and Sons; Whdrlpooi Corpn. v. Resistrar ofTrade Marks; Tin Plate Co. oflridsa Ltc. v. State of'Bihar, Sheela Devi v. Jaspai Sinoh and-P'm'ab Nuttonal Bcmk v. O.C.Knshnan. this Coiirt hcid that where hierarchv of aDoeals is provided by the statute, party must exhsust ths statutory r^u'iedics bslbrs i^sorti^g to w!"sl iurisdictioa. " Further, applymg the said ratio in the mati.er of U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandev and another^. the Supreme Court obssn'ed as under: "21. In U.P.State Brictse Corpn. Lfd. v. U.P.Rqfya Setu Nsgam S.Kamicichari Sangh, it was hdd that •whesj. tbs dispute relales to eiribreeHicnt of a riaht or obiigation uader the s.l.atute aiid specific remedy is, the.refore. provided 'utider the statute- .fhe Hii2h Court should not deviate from the general view atid mterfere inider Article 226 except whiiti 11 veiy strong case is made out for makice a departure. Tbe person who uisists iipoi^ such rsiiiedy cun iivaii 01 tii^ proc^ss us provided under fte statute. To Sbe same eftsct are tbe decisions m Preniier AuSofiobiies I.td. v. Kamiekcir (.2uu5; b &L-C ^yy (2005) 8 SCC 264 F./' 1 "^ftsa^ y ^-.:yrfa' Shantaram P/adke, Raj'asthan SRTC v. Knshfici Kant, C.lio.ndrakGnt Tuka.rGni Nikuyn y. M'unicipcd C.Ofpn, o/ A.hmedabad and in Scooters Indiu v. Vijai E.V.Eidred. In aacither decisioa OB fhe concept of maifflainabilitv of •writ peti'tiosi vis-a-vis availabiliiv of altemative remedy. fhe Supreme Court iK fee matter ot'Secy. U.P. High School <& Intermsdiate Educatjon, AUahabad & Q'yiots'ief'v. I'f,,K.L.'£sl. obssr^rsd 3s und.sn c-< "4. FrotD the records it is bome out that the uuestios asto whether '&i:; respondeut has a iegaf right to a!ter iiis daie of birth recorded in the certificate gramed by fhe Board was psiidnig coiisid£r<ition beibfs the ^ippsli^'i^ Co'urt. iiic i;vi'rit petitioja filed by the respondeiffi should, therefore, not have been etitertained oameulariv in view of thc fact &at the appeal thereagainst was pendiog. Wrrt jurisdictiou is discrctioaary jurisdiction aiid should aot ordiiiarily be exercised ifthsi'e is an altemative remedv." A commoii thread rumii.ag into the dicta laid down by fee Supreme Court in fhe aforemen.tioned cases is that, m)rma!lv fhe High Court should aot mterfere if there is an adequate efScacious altemative remedy w'here hierarchy must exhaust the sitatiiton/ remedv before resorting to writ junsdictsoii, exceot when a ven' stro'a0 case is made out fbr makina a departure. Applyins 'fhe well-settled dicta laid do'wri by ths Supreme Court on the issue of availabilitv of attemative remedv to !the facts of the case, thss oetitiun is dismissed as not maiiitamabie as no strons case has bee" made out ibr exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdaction m favour ofthe petitioners. However, liberty is resenredto tbe petstioner to take recourse to aitemative statutory forum, raisins all the srou]3ris; availabie to Ihe oetitioner. ifso advised. No order asto costs. als is provided bv the state'te, party •f Sd/- , Satish K. Agnihotn Judge l(200T)2SCC2;<i