^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, C.G. 'i^S^'kitidt—.-i;.,.. -1^<^^ l*".a. '!&$h^^ "'Stwg^e'fe?^?^ •-a.'WWc-CfCiiK.y.Ss,, W.P.No. PETmONERS: C1Q /200I VERSUS RESPONDENT8: 1. Vaishnavi Rice Industries, a registeed partnership firm, Vill. Dharampura, Mana, Raipur, C.G. 2. KishQre Agarwal, aged about 41 yrs., s/o Late Shri Mohaiilal, Gaajpara, Raipur, C.G. 1. Chliattisgarh State Elect- -ridty Board through its Executive Director, Gudiyari, Raipur, C.G. 2. Additional Superintendent Engmeer, Chhattisgarh State Electncity Board, Ward Nayapara, Raipur, C.G. 3. Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Elect- ricity Board, Mana, Raipur, C.G. 4; State of Chhattisgarh flirough S.H.O, P.S.Mana Cafflp, Raipur, C.G. 5. Chief Judfcial Magisttate, Raipur, C.G. Writ Petition.und.B- Articles 226 and 227 of thfr €onstitnti(»nof^ndia. iCTMEEX^^^Jr^Ql \^.-^ ^'•'^ ,,".."^ <-.'•." XI-HC-22 aiit^Ii^ iwiw vy.wi 'sCTra'-crtt^ ^J u~! (, 'liiTi|<4I|(S, W.P.496/2001 ai nR»ri^ffw: W6?r 17.10.2001 s [?PIt:T 'RTTOT ^ fe^t ^RSR ^? ^OT 31lt^ Shri B.Kinger for! Shr.l R.S.Jaiswal the petitloner. |for the Electricity Board, Shri Gautam Bi-ia<au|r.t GA for the State. PrelJjninary. objedtion has been raised as rsgards -maintainability'of this pqtition under Article 226 of the Constitution'of India< i. First of all U may be stated that the FIR has been lodgea against thev;4'it Petitloner regarding cert allegations. levelled agai<is't h.un by the Departmenti Tbe ir.atteE is now under inves^-igatlon by the ccxnpetent autho, On 17.4.2001 on humanj.tar^.an ground tbat the petitioner's niece { Slster's daugtrteri 20.4.2001, tbls Court ordj ) was going to be married on ;red that tbe petitioner be 1 allowed to go. on.interim (sall o£ Es. 15,000/-. It is stated &» at bar by Shri Kinger jthat in fact the petitioner bad already obtained a sjinilar order from the Sessions Cowcf Be tbat as it may, that ajspect of the matter is over. Both Mr.Jaiswal and Hr.BhadurJj submit tbat in tbe ligbt of the reliefs sought £or in thjjs writ petition it is clear tbat too exercise extra ordinai)y jurisdiction under Article '226 of the Constitution ^ill not be proper in as much as 1 ..2 ^Tt^'^firt an^iq?! r<-ii+. sn^i grciN flf^r 3tl$i'l x)5|ct>(;yil3SISEl) '"•'?Wr®iSINI! ::::::^€%'''li;ISii^B • *• * .«snt^'^RnwHf^i :^l^^<n41^ 'RTR^ ^ 'fe1^ iTSTPgiTsii^r the reliefs sought can ^>e ma<te avallable by tbe corape- tent aaJdsaKjatxsBaJE court and in fact the matter is alread under investigation. Mr^ Kinger submits as regards the electrl.city bills whlch| they have been submitted by the department, since be ha^ taken a very serious grl-^/aa s BndBK before the Electrjlcal Inspector under section 26 (6) o£ the Indian Electj:icity Act, payment of those bills should not be insisted •^ upon before tbe concerned inspeci taKes a final decisj.on.i It appears that there are exhaus- tive'provisl'ons -to dealjwitb such srievances under the relevant jiaws prescribeja in this regard. When there is effective alternative rismedy available, this covS^^WSy' be .reluctant to exercix^ its power of writ jurisdiction under ArtJ.de 226 of th^ Constitution. of India. I may: only state that the com^etent authorlty before wt-iom the grievance of the wrp-t petitioner is pending, sl' .<d deal-with itstrictly iin accordance witti the provisions of law prescribed in tbjis regard. Petition is |thus rejected. ^~_\. -._--.- Sd/- Chief Justice a GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50.000. <'o y^y