@ AFK’ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wait Petitign (S) NIL 6031 of 2006 Smi. Ram Rai Vercug Stat: of Chha‘ttisgafh and otharg Post for order on 24*day of April, 2008. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri v Judge ' pw'rrrmNER 121 O ‘S_ HIGH mU‘RT OF CHHATTKGARH AT BILASPUR “y w i‘it ‘ n re’u't’im’i . 5'5! ,m nu. m "mu mM ul n2mm nn, qmt Ram Bai Wr/Q Shji Satyanarayal: Ravi, aged, about 23 yeam R/o Gram Panchayat Tcidikachhax (Harizan paw War N0: ), Kmamra Jmwpad Pmchavaf Sungpur D1311 Surguja (CG). VERSUS 4 N A, State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Woman and Child au- m ,._ Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Collee’mr, Surgtlja Ambikapur (CG). 3.The Projeet Officer, Janpad Panchayat Surajpur Distt. Surguja (CG) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpaci Panchayat Surajpur, Dim. Surguja (CG). . Smi. Fushpa Sahu, W/o Fitamber Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Sahapara Ward No. Gram 13amhayat Telaikacllhar. Janpad Panehayai. Sm‘ajpur, Disu. Surguja (CG). {\VRTT PFTYFION I TNDFR ARTIFI ??6/7?7 OF THF CONQTYTI TTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hen‘hle Mr. Satish K, Agnihetrim. J.) hesent : gmt Meena §ha<htr1 Advnmfe fat the peflflnnm Shn Y S Thakur Deputy AdvoeaLe General for me State lespondent NO 1 tn § §hn Arvmd nubey, Advocat appearing on behalf of Shrr Arun Sao Advoeaie for the reepondent NO 4 U: 8111 Ashok gilttkla, Advocate for the respondent No. 5 ORDER (?asser} on 2H Emy of Apri}, 2&93) The matmnner hy this petitrorr, challenges the. order dated 25.09.2006 (Agnexure 13(9): 1 r bv 111$ wammdenf Mn e hm 119911 at m t d ad Anvanbqdt RAW MM. at A110 .nbadi C 1 h. 1y: am hv the respondent N0. 4. Chalierg e . appmnhnmt o? the remonderrt NO on fhe oost of Ayambadr IxarV4karta s 011 two grounds. Firstly. that it was not in accordance with circular dated 12.0}.2006 (Armexure Pfl) and secondly, the appomtment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of Angaobadi Karyalqu‘ta is Violative of Article l4, 16 and 21 oftlle Coristitution of India. A-o\ @ This Couzt, in the matter of Smt. KalesLwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P.(S) No.7.6/07); and :wthar cmmacted mai‘terg, dgcided on Q9.G2.2007; hem that the Anvanbadi wakhs are admittedly employees of ths Patnhayats; as their appointments are mads by the Janpad Panchayats on propasal made by the concemed Gram Panchayats. It was titrther observed. that the petitioners have statutcry alteniativa remedy available by way of statutory appeal undar Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appsal amt Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short ”the Rules, 1995) to the Director of Panchayat, Government of Clrhattisgarh The petitioners, without exereising of that alternative remedy of statutory appeal, have approached this; Court directly. ln the present ease also adequate eftioaeious statutory altemative remedy is a.oordiitgly availahie to the petitiotier wider thl. proVisiOits of Rule 3 of the Rules, 199:1 read. with section 9'1 of-the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam; 1993 (for short ‘ the Adhioiyam, B93), 4. Smt. Meeha Shashtri learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of ABL Integration Ltd. and another V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others. 1, Sonjana M. Wig (Ms) v. Hindustm Petroleum Corpn, Ltd? and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. RS. Pandey and another3. J't Amhuja Cement and another4 observed as under: "1'1 We shall first deal with the plea regardhig alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty~seeond Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a role of self-imposed limitation, It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a, rule of law‘ Despite ‘ ”‘U 3’4 ‘- ~§ The Supreme Court in the matter of State of HP. and others v. Gujrat " 2004 (3) soc 53'3 i 2005 (8) scc 242 3 2007 (2) soc 216 4 (2005) 6 SCC 499 applying the said ratio in the matter of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. 6. Further v. R.S.Pandey and anothers, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as under: "21. Ln. UPState Bridge Come. Ltd. V. UP. Rajya Sam Nigam S. Karmackari Sangh, it was held that when the dispute relates to eiforceinent of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general View and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon sue-h remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the e same effect or the deeisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamiekm‘ Shantaram Wadkr), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chrmdrakant Tukaram Nikam V. Nfunicipai Corpn. Qf Ahmedabaa’ and in Scooters fndia V. Vijai E. V. EZa’t‘ed. " 7. In another latest decision on the concept of maintainability of writ petition iris-a-Vis availability of alternative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sec. UP. Hieh School & Intermediate Edueation, Allahabad & another v. HK Laléa observed as under : the existence of alternative remedy, it. is within the jurisdiction of description ofthe High Court to grant relief under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. A: the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an aitemative remedy has nothing to do with tho jurisdiction of the case, normally the. High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court Without availing the aliemative remedy provided the High Court should not ensure that he has made out a strong ease or that there ern'sts good grounds to invoke the extraordinary iurisdiction. 21. Ln GVemppa Pillai 1A Ramon & Ramon Ltd. CCE v. Duniop India Lid“ Ramendra Kishore Eiswas v. Stale of Trlpum. Shiv Geri/27a Ammo Patti v. State of Zhfohm‘ashira, CA. Abraham v. I.T.O, Tiiaghur Paper M’z‘lis C0. Lid. V. State of Orissa, H.B.Gcmd}1i v. Gopirmth & Sons, Whiriivoo? Comm. V. Registrar qfTmdemarks, Tin Plate Co. oflna‘z'a Ltd. v. State afBi'har, Sheeiz; Devi v. Jaspal Singh, and Punfab National Bank v. 0C.Krishnan, this Court had held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to Whit jurisdiction. " ”De 5 (200s) 8 SCC 264 ° 2007a) soc 216 "4. Front the records it is borne out that the question as to whether the respondent has a legal right to alter his date of birth reeorded in the eertitieate granted by the Board was pending consideration before the appellate Court. The writ peition filed by the respondent should, therefore, not have Mm £11L-1mi11ed particularly €41 View 0f the. fm‘f tlzat the appea! thereagainst was pammg. Writ jurisdictian is discrertionary jurisdiction 1nd shnuld not 0rdi1-..ri1y be exerciged if there i$ an altemzitive. mmedy. H A 60:13:11-1- threw running into the dicta. laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforgmentioned cases is that immially the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate eificacious alternative remedy. Where hieramhy of appeals i3 provided by the statute, pairy must sximust this statuiory romeo}! before resortiiw to writ jurisdictiom except when a very stroog case is made out for making a depammire. Applyiiig the well s-.f.t1..d dicta. iaid doom by the Supreme Court on. the issue of availability of altemativ‘ iemedy to the foetg of the case, wherein, the petitioner hag challenges ooh-appointment of the petitioner, no ease is made out for making out a departure tiom n.1‘ma1 rule. Thus; this petition is dismissed as not maintainable, in View of the availability of statutory alternative remedy. However, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory alternative forum that may be available to him, if so advised. Non order asto costs Sd/- \\: Sahu Satish K. Agnihotri Judge J I l f