Bib“ Ww RE Qi‘ Cfi§£XTIV§SGAR§§ Ai‘ EILASPUR WRIT PETI’I‘EQN (S\ N0. 34i§ £2008 Smt. S6$ma Chancis? W/e Am Lhanw 2%“? absaut M» ynai‘s, Shiksha Ammx Wade- i Higher Sewncmrv Suhoc; lakhanpuw Janimd PaALLLéya‘L, Chamgm, Basmi Jeri} Bastar, Karlker (CIEJ 2. Ku. Smdhya Uika DA) S}1ri‘3&mmu Ram 7Hke aged about 28 years Shiksim Kanm Guam-11, Gav-Loannam Highar gawni‘aary Suhwi, Lakhangmri, Jempad ?an¢haya‘L Charma, Dwmct Nmh Bastar, Kaiiksi‘ (L 3. ‘(a Marru Nacmg D/G Shm D ‘w‘udg, aged aboui ”5 yearb.‘ bhikslm Kama} qmw 1i; Gm‘emmem Higher Seamdary, Lakhanpmi, Eauyaé E’amhayat. Elaamma, Dimict Nimh Eastar, Kaiiiwr (C6134 4. Smi. Manjuiam Pi‘ajapati W/e ghzi Ajay ‘k‘aiamti, zggésd aimw; 28 yams, Shiksha 142311111 Oma§e ”i1, Governmmt Micwie 1, 1xnya¥ .gmpwk. P ""‘ {mumaf EJmnmVm‘th Baqiar lyinker 64 q .‘ ashwmt mm, do ghn Ram§aya§ Ja§x1, aged about 3 Vears. ShikShz1 Kamli Erada v .‘Li‘ , @wermasm MiiMEe $chwl, AMA, Janpmi ?am¢hayat., Kazakei‘a Eiwict Ninth Bam‘ar, Kmkeg" (€11) 6. K11. Mamie: Raihore D/o $hri Madhav PraSacl Rathore. ageé abaut Z5 v Shiksha Karmi Crack-H Gnvmmma MiaMle §Nmoi Mandanmam ham“ {’“zdmwi Kaixkw, DlSymut Nuah Basiar, mkd (QR) VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : i. State 0f Chhaitisgari’i rl‘hrwgh: 3663‘ Pamhayzii said Email Dtavgi€;i3xz1:3iii, Mammhva 3‘; 8‘. Bhawan. Rzdpuf \Ci‘y.) Tke Ca;-g11.s¢1‘11ja.y Trihai We§hre Mammiaya. Kanpur (Cit) 3. The Chief Exewtive OEKCE'“ Zih Pammlya’i kmiwr D15 rad \Jomh Hakka” immkel {C6,} The (Dwarf Execuiive {)fficer. .Eanp'mi{ Pumchavat Kanka‘, Digtriak — Nimh Basmr, Kanker (C G.) The Shiaf Exacuim. OIE’Ecar, Empad Panchzwat Ciaaxama. ’District Nmrih Bastar, Kamkaa‘ {06.) PETFHONER w Lh ' $ ¢ a “ . e " “a s! K -2- n ’3. The Chm " Execuiive Ufi‘icexg 3 aé’ E3amchayat Narhm‘ar, District Nsrth Bastar, .Kanker (CG.) ‘L’VRYT i’ETI’l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 {)F THE CONSTIR FFIOV {BF TNDEA v‘ iii: Hon’hie Sim Satésh Kw Agmhotrfi. J. Present: Shr£ DNPmjapaiL A&v0caie fey the peiitioners. Shxi {mm Sao, Govanmmm Advacm» i0? the Sfate/m wwdent$ 1 am 2 GRAJL Q Wiiv} in k; 33%“ A 0n 19 *4 éay 0t Xugugt, 2908) Leamed coamal appearing for the petitioners submits {hat the respomiemi-auihoritms have failed :0 unckrstami the gmrgnrt ofQw Qz’der Whereirg, iuefore p&SSing ihe impugneti (mims dated 23,052008 {Armexare ’P/i}, prhaciyhs of natura'i jmiiee was requifed £10 1% compiisci wii’h. It. i$ farmer coniencied ‘thai Show causa Emma was issued 011 one ground anti the imgugned ()rdsrs éiated 23.G5.2GOS (Amman? P/i) wele passsd (m ciijiiéfem ground. NO show-cause—ntmce or ()ppm'hmi’iy of heaiing was afibrcled i0 ’ihe peiiliomm 1'11 raspect ofihe gmimd, which was takm far passing the immagned (mien Be 1M1 as it may, sinca it involva$ question af facig Whic%; car} ike wasidered 03113; ‘W tha appéiiate author§m fhvas, ifnis QaSa is nei (ms G? 1m: cage whemin égpadure ii"i)m nounai mia of remmng m staéalmry fewm5 be a1i<1ewed (3:1 tha quesi‘imx 0f avaiiabi'iity 0f ahsmative remeiiy the Hom’bfie Supreme Calm i1}, {he maiter 0f Stew affiP. (Md wears v. Gufczmé‘ Aimzg'a Cemem ma! Motley}, observeé as under: z. We Shaii iirst §ea§ wii’h the eiea regaminc ahemaéive remedy as miged by me aypeiEam ‘Siate. ExeeetEx a yeriwd whee Aiticle 226 was amem‘ied by the Curlsiimtien (immi- Semmé Ameiadmem) Act, 1976, the pewer rehiiiig ge aliemative .remeiiv ha$ hem censidered to be e mie a? s 1f- Ex’aapegeti 'i‘atien Ii is esseeim'aily a mie Qj‘ geii‘aey, cenvenéence and eiecre‘tion and never a wk 0%“ iaw. Beepi‘ie fhe exiewnee ef 2m ahemative remedy, i1; is Within the i)N I.” " j/v'xr “1'7 mrg“, A a y m 5. In anoiher decision on the concepi of maintainahiiiiy of wr§t oetitioo Vis-éa—Vis avaiiabiiiiv of aliemative remedy. the Supreme Comi in the marier of ‘Secy. UP. High Schooif éir Intermediafe Ecfucaiion, Aliai'zabaa’ a3: anoiher v. HKLaZJ, observed as under: “4n From the records i1. is home out that tho quemon asto Wham}? $119 resoondem’ has a legal right to aimr hi3 data of 5) 8 SCC 264 3 (2007) 2 SCC 21¢ (0C? jurisdiction Gf ciiscretion of the High Caur‘i’ ”in wan? mief under Micle 226 ai‘ the Censtimti'mi. At the gagaé :imea ii camoi be §o$f $ight of that thouQE1 the maize? naming m an .1! A +2 cutsmamrg mnedy has izothing ta d0 wiih the jui‘a'adictian 6f tEie LaQe normaiiy 1,116 High Cami ghouid mi interiérs é‘fthere is‘ gm adaquaia ehlicaciuus aiismativé femady. if smiiwmiy approaches the High Couri Wifnout avaiiirig the aiiemative wraetiy gu’miiaiéd ‘thé: High Cour: shown“; {imam ma: 11:3 3mg made out a mimg case 0r that there exist gm::d gmunds t0 mwke {ha .2m'a0rdiaary juriwiwm}. 2.1. In ( Veemppa Film v. Ran/tan & Rama” Ltd; C LE“ v. L§5§.; Ramgmka [Yiskowe Bfsw v. Stare 0f ‘H‘mur‘a, iivganda 4mm Jwz/ x Stafe (y'MaPzarasl/ttra; v. ITO, Titaigkw‘ ém’vfiils C0. Lad v. Shim of H.5.G¢mdki v. Gopz' m’k mid Smss; Whirlpwl C(jrgM, v. Registrar“ of Trade 1Waiilcs; Tm Hare Ca. affi’zdia Ltd" v. Sfczre af‘Bz’haz; Mada Wm v. Jaspat’ Singis and 1%z'gz‘ab N a3 Bank v, {ESE/'1; '2, ihis Cami ham that Wham him'archy of amwais is previdsci by {he statute, {mty must eJQ’iawt :13»? $iafu€<3r' remediaz-s {aal‘bre msm€mg m Wrif im‘isdictim. ” 4n Fimhei apoiying the saéd miio in i§1e matter of UlPXmte Spinnmg Co. ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another}, the Suprems Com: observed as under: “’21, in {J'.E’.Staa‘e Bridge (form/z Lid. v. (KRRajvoz Sam F‘figm%z Sifg'csrnim‘cm’zri bang/1'2, ii wcis held mat Wmaii .1 4iwe» , uispuw A: q. “4-,. 1 w wEates i0 embrceman‘i 0f a rig§1i 01‘ obiigatim under the 3121mm amt s§3eci§£ wmedy is, themfow, pmvided ander the Siawm the High {1mm Sheuid 1am, deWaie from Ehe gmomi Viaw aad miarfoi‘s moor Ayihzw ‘ .420 ’\’§/ oxwijm d wow 1 a very Siroalg case is. made out for making a depalma‘e. The yerson who iais§s£g @933 such yemedy azaji avai? of tho puwesg 4s provided Lmdex: The $iatuie. To the same eifecE are 'éhe dwiskms m Pr’gmier fiagfomobizgs Lid. Kcmdekm .. zzmmmm 17V dim, Rqfa‘whaw SR’I‘C v. K 1mm: K5 r, (3% ’FLmmrmz 1» rm Nikam v. jWmicz'pw ~1 Cargo. l of Ahmadabac/ and in Smaters Iim’z'cz V. Vi/‘ai F V}§!L”i‘i"ed. ” iamfmk v a 3 a k.’ i z 1 * L v F -4- 53m}: recafdaci in the cemficate gramsé by the Boaré was yafu’ng camidsmtian befafa “£36 appeliale Cami. Em: wrii palitiém mad iay the respcwem‘ shouki mere'fbra mt. mm: been miteriaixaw pariicuMriy $21 viaw axf aha. fag: mat the appeal ihereagainst was pemding. Writ jaris5§ict§0n is discfetionary jiii’igdictian and sheuld i'wt Gi'dmariiy b6 exercised ifthere is an ai'ternative remetjy.” A common thread running i910 the dicta, laid dmrm by the Supreme 001111. i1} ihe afefemenljoned cases is that, normailiz ihe Higjh Cmm shou§d not. mterfére if there is an adequate e§icacious aiiemative remedy when: h§6rafchy of apgeajss is providad by the statute, pariy must exhausi the statutory remedy befm‘e msmmig to Writ jurisdiciforl, exce§3i wheti a very stroag case is made out fbr makimg a depaz‘num. Applying ihs weii-setij¢é dicta» laid dawn by ihe Suprema Court on the §ssue ofavaiiahiiity afaiiemaiive remedy to iihe facts of ihe case, {his pe’titiam s dismissmi a3 mt maiiaiainable as no strong eaSe has been made out for exercige of exirraereinary digcreh’omary jurisciiction n " faveur eii‘ihe petitioners. Hewever, liberty is reserved te the petitioeers i0 take eecourse m alternaiive statutory fbmm, raising 2:11 me grounds, evaimbie 1'0 the petétmnei‘s, if so adviseéi. No order asto casEs. ’ " Sd/- . ’Satish K. Agnihotn Judge