''?,-' ~<f nn .? '•!-~^'[-^^ H' <1^ ''^<ST5~/ / - IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESfiARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (C) N0. /2011 PETITIONERS \. -o ^^l^ 'A^'-'' ^^" ^y »J s>" ^ ^^ ^- RESPONDENTS |^1*N^ ^ ft 1. Dr. Guneshwar Singh, S/o Shri Dhansai Kanwar, Caste- kanwar, aged about 30 years, R/o Qtr. No. B/1355, Block- III, N.T.P.C. Krishna Vihar, Jamnipali, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.6.). 2. Shiv Kumar Rathore, S/o Shri Bhatwat Prasad Rathore, aged about 52 years, R/o Qtr. No. A/703, Yamuna Vihar, Block-IV, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Post Jamnipali, Oistt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Collector, Korba Distt. Korba (C.6.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 3. The Tahsildar, Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.6.) 4. Jaimangal Singh,S/o Prem Singh, aged about 60 yeasrs, Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village Agarkhar, Patwari Halka No. 33, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.6.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition CC) No. 1377 of2011 PETITIONERS «s»jR E;.^%- -a^ 1 Dr. Guneshwar Singh Versns RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&others WErrPETIIIQNUNDERARTICLE 226/227 QF_3HE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal. J.) Present : Shri Pushpendra KumarPatel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 14.03.2011) 1. Orders dated 22.10.2010 and 15.11.2010, passed by the Tehsildar, Kathghora in Revenue Case No. 760/B-121/2010-11 is under assail in the instant petition. 2. Shri Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that proceedings pending before the Tehsildar, Kathghora, are without jurisdiction. 3. In the present case adequate efficacious statutory altemative remedy is available to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 8 of MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959') according to which, Board ofRevenue has power ofsuperintendence over all the authorities. Further, if any order is passed by the Tehsildar, Kathghora, Ifaat can also be challenged by the petitioners by filing an Appeal or Revision. 4. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and others v. Gujrat Ambuja Cement and another, while dealing with availability ofaltemative remedy, observed as under: '2005 (6) SCC 499 •',t3-::,y. 'S'.^t-'1'.'* 'va ..&;. "S. g y^j 'tifr"y v-rfs>' 5. ^-:iF-'" --^ "17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding altemative remedy as raised by the appellant State, Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constilution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to altemative remedv has been considered to be a rule of self- imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of altemative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of description of the High ,Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the, Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that thou^i the matter relating to an alteniative remedy lias nothing to do witli the jurisdiction of fhe case, normally the Hieh Court should not interfere ifthere is an adequate efBcacious altemative remedy. IfSomebody approaches the High Court without availing the altemative remedy provided the High Court should not ensure tliat he has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invokethe extraordmaryjurisdiction. 21. In G.Verappa Pillai v. Rmnan & Raman Ltd., CCE v. Dunhp India Ltd., Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, Shiv Gonda Anna Patil v. State ofMaharashtra, CA. Abraham v. I.T.O, Titaghur Paper M-ills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, H.B.Gandhi v. Gopinath & Sons, Whirlpool Corpn. V. Registrar ofTrademarks, Tin Plate Co. oflndia Ltd. v. State ofBihar, Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, and Punj'ab National Bank v. O.C.Krishnan, this Court had held tliat where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statirte, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to \wit jurisdiction." Further applying the said ratio in the matter of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "21. In U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. Uf. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a ri^rt or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the Hig}i Court should not deviate from the general view and mterfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy ean avail ofthe process as provided under the statute. To the same effect or the decisions in Premser Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. Of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v.. Vyai E. V. Eldred. " (2005) 8 SCC 264 W'%N si\. ;"68a, 's ^f^.^-S^-31 6. In another decision on the conceptof maintainability of writ petition vis-a-vis availability ofaltemative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sec. U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, i Allahabad & anolher v. H.K. Lal, observed as under: "4. From the records it is bome out that the question as to whetlier the respondeiit has a legal ri^it to alter his date of birth recorded in the certificate granted by the Board was penduig eonsideration before fhe appellate Court. The writ petition filed 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 ordmarily be exercised ifthere is an altemative remedy." 7. A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, nonnally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy. Where hierarchy ofappeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. 8. Applying the well settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the present case, no case is made out for making out a departure from normal rule. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not mainlainable, in view of the availability of statutory altemative remedy. No order Sahu asto costs. Sd//- • NJK-Agrawal Judge 2007(2)8cc 216