w ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRiT PETiTiON (Ci N0.2886 of2007 Petitioner Respondents Dhani Ram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, S/o Puranlal Sahu, R/o viliage Kharkara, Tehsii- Gariyaband, Dist : Raipur - (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat and village uevelopment, Mantraiaya, D.K.-S. Bhawa", Raipur, Dist: Raipur- (C.G.) The Chief Executive Ofricer, Janpad Panchayat Village Chura, Dist; Raipur-(C.G.) The Coliector, Raipur-(C.G.) Pyarela! S/o Jagdish, Aged about 40 years, R/o Pandripanidih, Tehsii- Gariyaband, Dist : Raipur- (C.G.) Naresh Kumar S/o Not Known, Aged about 40 years, Village - Kharkara, Development Block Chura, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) ;R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST1TUTION OF 5. Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Jusiice Satish K. Agnihotri Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Adyocate for the respondents No. 1 and 3/State. (Passed on this10'B1day of W.ay, 2007] By this petition, filed under 'Xrticle 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 3/5.2.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhura, District Raipur and the order dated 17 November, 2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, Raipur in Revenue Case No. 16/A-89/2006-2007, whereunder the petltioner has been declared as disqualified on the ground saa 3- 4 C2^ that the fourth child of the petitioner was born after 26.1.2001, on 29.6.2001. Birth of more than fcivo living children after the 26th day of Januap/, 2001 entaiis disqualification under Section 36 (1) (m) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'). Accordingly, the Coiiector, Raipur in sxercise of its power under sub-section (3) of Section 36 QT the Adhiniyam, 1993, declared the petitioner as disciualifisd by the order dated 17"' November, 2QO! (Annexure P/2). The petitionsr chailsngss the iegality and vaiidity ofthe orosr dated 17'" Novembsr, 2006 passed by the Coiiector, Raipur on the ground that the enquiry was rsferred to the Tahsiidar by the CoHector. Raipur and durma psndencv ofthe enauln?, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisionai Officer, Gariyabanc! after considering compiaint and writien subinission of the petitioner and re'evant documents, passed ths order, which is .f j^: ^^^^| of ths Be that as it may, sub-section (4) of the Section 3! Adhiniyam, 1993 provides for appeal to Commlssioner or Board of Revenue, respectiveiy, whose orders in such appeal shaii be final. Sub-ssction (4) of Section 3S of the Adhinivam, 1993 reads as i'Wl'*t-»Ft * "Any perscn aggrieved by ths decision o* Co'^ercor Oi' Commissioner, as the cfee may be, und©rsub-section (3), may, within a period of 30 days from the dste of such decision appea! to Commissioner or Board of Revenue respectiveiy whose orders in such sppesl shali oe nnar' [^, ""T CD 6. !n vlew of clear statutory alternative provision available, there is nothing exceptional in the present case so asto caii for indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainabte. However, the right is resen,'ed to the petitioner to take recourse to statutopy alternative remedy ss avaiiabie undsr sub-section (4) of Section 36 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1893. s<11'- .. ^ SatisbK.Ag"ihotn ».