c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) No. 8) §^/2007 PETITIONER .0^ •^S-S^ ^- v^ o' -^am Narayan Sahu, Son of Shri Het Ram Sahu, aged about 3°\ years, resident of Village Nayapara, TehsU Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS '^•^-^ -••:''''\s?-^-"' ^°c" >AO?"' t'^>- ^y' •" o ri ....... ^^ 1,2' 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Panchayat & Welfare Development Department, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur (C.G.). 3-^Collector, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.). 4. ^Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.). A^. ^ COURT OF CHHATTiSSARH: BILASPUR rlt Pstition JS't Ho. 318S of 2007 Rarn Naravan Sahu, Son of Shri HeS Ram Sahu, aged about 39 years, resident of Viliage Nayapara, Tehsi! Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG). 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayai and VVelfare Deyelopment Department, Govemment of ChhattiBgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raiour (CG). 2) Joint Director, Panchayat and Sociai Welfare Department, Raipur (CG), 3) Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 4'j Chief Exeoutlve Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baloda Bazar, District Raipur(CG). (Writ Petltion under Arttete 226 of the ConstituUon of inda) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Safish K. Agnihotri, J. S'nri Manoj Kumar SinMa, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwiyedi, Panel Lawyer fortheState/respondents No:1fo3. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the respondent No.4. K* !5^ iy this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 10-5-2007 ^' passed by the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P/11). The ssrv'ice conditions of the petitioner are governed by C.G. Pancahyat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, "the Adhiniyam 1993") read with Panchayat Service (Disciplme and ?u!es, 1989. 'dtis 2) Ruie 3 of Chhatisgarh Psnchayats (for short, "the Rules 19S5") read with Revision) Rules 1995 i,1993 provldes that the appeai againsi maintainable before the Sub-Divislona! the order of Gram Panchayat Is ^ vnt^tf 3) 't;-, The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions he!d that whers hterarchy of appeai is provided by statute, it must b®exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction. (See: H.P. and othere Vs. Gujrat Ainbuja Cement and anofher1 and U.P. State Spsnning Co. Ud.v. R.S. Pandey and anofher^). 4) !n the preserrt case, ftere is an allegation of violation of principie of natural justice. Learnsd counse! appearing for ths respondent No.4 submsts that provisions of Ruie 7 of the Chhattisgarh PanchayatSemce (Discipiine and Appea!) Rules, 1999, have been complied with in Its ietier and spirit. Aitegstion of violation of principie of natursl justice is in dispute as, according to the respondents, principies of naturai jusUce have not been compjted with. There is no altegatlon of violation of fundamentai rights and no speciai circumstances exist whjch may invoke extraordinary discretionar/ jurisdict'ion of this Court to entertain the petition under Articis 226 of ths Constrtution of India, this psiition is not ff'iaintainabie. 5) i'n view of avaijability of aiternative statutor/ forum as provided under the provisions of the Adhinwam, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the this petition is not maintainabte. The petitioner could hsve a( appellate forum before rushing to this Court invokin^ „ jurisdistion under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. les i5, ths nary 6) This petition Is accordingiy dismissed as not maintainabie. Hov/ever, the petjtioner is at liberty to take recours®to other aiternativs statutory forum that may be avaiiabie to him. Sd/- -', Satish K.Agmhotri . Judge -.; ., ' ilWs) O SJCU 49S> 2 (2005) 8 SCC 254