^^•^T^ ^^^^•'1 . ,.-..;^oy^..^.^ (s >»ns< ,cW .?•..•-"'" ^cy-r' HON'BLES.B. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^N0.^1 ,: WRITPETITION (S 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS; i-[ •i^ ,A „£ '• S. R. Chouhan, S/o Late Shri B.S. Chouhan, Aged about 35 years, Post Assistant Director, R/o Kabir Nagar, Phase I, Qr. No. M.D.S.157, Near Water Tank, Raipur, C. G. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal, Research and Training Center, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, C.G. 2. Director, Department of Tribal, Research and Training Center, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, C.G. 3. Joint Director, Department ofTribal, Research and Training Cenfer, D.K.S. Building, Ministry, Raipur, C.G. 4. Mr. Avinash Sendur, Gurughasidas Cultural Building, Shop No.l, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title. 2 PARTICULARS OF THE RESPODENTS: As mentioned in the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THIS PETITION IS BEING MADE: The petitioner being aggrieved by the order 1 IBI K 'i ?^ :-^<? PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH C_QURT_QF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTION (S) N0.1341 OF 2011 S.R. Chouhan Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others ' ^ (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocateforthe petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 11th day of March, 2011) 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the letter dated 29/11/2010 (Annexure P/1) issued by Joint Direetor, Scheduled Tribe Research and Training Institute, Raipur, whereunder the petitioner has been asked to supply certain information as demanded by one Avinash Ssndur, under the Right to Informat'on Act, 2005 (for short "the Act, 2005"). Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner ;s protected under Section 8 (j) of the Act, 2005. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, if the petitioner has any grievance against the letter whereunder he has been asked to submit certain information, the petitioner may approach to the appellate authority and thereafter to the Information Commissioner. Since alternative statutor>' remedy is available, there is no reason to entertain this petition at this stage challenging the above-stated communication under Article 226 of the Consfitution of India. This Court, in Maa Sharda Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Pratappur v. Stafe of Chhatfisgarh & Others , relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others v. 2008 (3) CGLJ 482 :;!l Arun »...^^.....^@ v. R.S.Pandey and anothei^ and Secy. U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K.Lal^, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others5, M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan Khan and Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City Industrlal Development Corpn. and another^ held that normally, the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust fhe statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made outfor making a departure. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory forum, (hat may be available to him, under the provisions of law, if so advised. No order asto costs. ^^•^ ' (2005) 6 SCC 499 •' (2005) 8 SCC264 4(2007)2SCC216 ' (2007) 8 SCC 338 'AIR 2007 SC 3153 ' (2007) 9 SCC593 EB