‘giiEh E§§J§f O$ 3HH£T?§SGARH : EZL§K$§9QR Wri‘z Pet§t§cn §§§§ Ne. 1§$§ of 26% Kamiesh Patei, Sio Shri Radhe‘ Shyam Patel, aged about 23 yews Rio Mukam P05? Masi‘wi, Tahsi‘i i‘xi’iasiuri, D§siricf Biiaspur {CG}. ?eimzmef Vea’sus $tate 0f CG, through 'ime Secretaw, Panchayat and Rwaé Deveicgament Depaitmeni, DKS: Bmwan, Raipuy ms: The Cc§%es:i0?, Biiaspur, D§si¥ici B§§a5mzr {Ct‘S} The Jam”: Conecmr, Bi§a5$u:, Distyict Biia$pw $3). Janpad Pamhavai. Mastur§, ihrcugh ihe Chéef Executive QEEcer, Masturi, D§strict Eiiaspur {CG}. (Writ Petitian undez' Articie 226 of ihe Cansiituiéon of Hicks) {$3 : ’r§c§1’b§e SNI Sa'iish K. Agnéham, J.} Fg'esent : Dr. Rajah Pandey and $hr§ Rakegh Pamiey, ecumei faf the petiiéoner. avv. Resaoméenis 3m MRS. Ehati . Gcm. Advocate far‘Ehe Sia'ée. a. DV {‘ERAL GR£§E§§ {Passed an ihis 25 th éay a? Feba’uai‘y, 2%9} The petiiéoner is aggr§eved by ‘Lhe arder dated 18-2-230é3 {Annexai’e-Pi?) passed by iHe Jami Cokiec‘tor, 0:1 t: xe crders of the CeHecior, whereby the peimonex” was {emcved fmm service on €he greund teat “me neti‘taenes' has moduced a fake DEd. Dipioma Certmeate. h: was fufihef ekee‘ted to iodge First fnforma''tion Repori {HR} before the poiice auther§%§es. The petiiiener §s aiso aggrievee by ihe arder eated i8-2-‘20G§ {Annexure—PIE} aassed by the Chief Execeiive 0€€§cen Janpae Panchaya%, Masiuri, whereby ihe service of %he petmoner wee terminated on the same ground. Sec‘tEen Q1 ef {he Chhattisgarh Pancheya‘z Raj Adhimyem. @g‘93 {ior shor? “z‘he ‘edhirziyam, ”$33“? read wiih Ruie 3 cf the Chhait§sgam §33nchayats (Appeal and Revieien1Ru§ee W95 (far shaft “me Ruiee. ‘iQ§5") ,1 2‘) "I x provicies thai againsi the ordei’ of the Ceilecior anpeai is maintainabie i‘o the Direcmr of Panchaya‘t. 3‘) ar. Pandey, iearneoi counsei appearing on behaif of the peiiiioner. submits that since the order da&ed 18-2-2QO§ (Annexure—Pi1) passed by “the Joint Coiiectci’ oi”: the crders of the Coilecton no appeal is maintainabie ta ihe Coilecter and thereafter subsequem appeai is Direcior of Panchayai is aiso no? mainiamable on ihe ground that the Joint Ceiiecfcr has directeca‘ f0 ‘miféate criminai proceedings. The ease of the pefitfanef is f‘nai the impugned oroier was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to ihe ee‘iiiioner. 4‘) found that sfafutory apoeiiafe provision fs adequate, effec‘rive and efficaofous. peii’tiorier when the above sfafutory appeifa'te forum rs avaiiabie. Orcier to direct prosecution can be considered by the Appeiiate Auihority, there is no bar urrder the provisiorfs of few. 5} Cm fhe quesiion of avaifa‘oiliry of affemative remedy, the Hon’bie Supreme Court in S'taie of HP. arm others v. Gujara’: embargo €emenf arid aoofher". observed as under: N ”W. We sheii first deai with the goiea regarding aifemefive remedy as raioed by the appeiiant State. Exoepf for a period when Articie 225 wee amended by the Coostituiion (Forty-second Amendment) Act, ’EQTE, foe goower a'eiating fo aiiemaii‘v'e remedy has beeo considereé i0 be a ruie of seif—imposed iimitaiioe. it is essentiaiiv a ruie of poiioy, convenience anti o‘iecretion and rsevef a ruie of iaw. Despite fife existence of an aifemative remedy. it is within the gurisdiction of discretion of the High Court fo gi'ani. reiief uoder Articie 226 of the Constitution. At the same time. it oenno‘t be iost sight of iiiat though the metier reiating to ao aifemative remeoy hae nothing fo do wi'ih ihe jurisdiction of the oaee, normaiiy ihe High Court shouioi not infeifere if there is av. adequate efficacious aitemetive remedy. if somebody approaches the High Court withoui avaiiirig the eiiemeiive remedy pi'ovided iiie High Com shouid ensure ii’raf ire ioas made oui a sirong case or iiiai fhere exist good grouncis to im'oke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 2i. in G. Veerappa Piiia v. Rainer: & Remain Ltd, CCE v. Dunrop mdia Lid; Remeridre Kishore Brew/as v. Sfae of Tripura, Shivgorrda Amie Peril v. $rare of Maharaehfra; CA Abraham i1. ITQ, Tia‘aghrrr Pa or Mii’r's Co. Lid. v. Siare of Orissa; hB Gerrdhr' vs. Goof friaffi and Sons; Whiripooi Corpn, v Registrar of i’rade M rks, “r? Pierre Co.l Iof ind‘a Lid. a}. Stare 9f Bihar, $r‘1eeia aevi V. Jasper 3irigi; emf Purger‘: " (2605) e soo’4e9 Be ihat as it may, without going inio ine merits of ihe case, i have There is no reason to exercise discretion in 'favoar of the Natfoj’ial Bank v. 0.0. Krishnan, i’ms Coux’i held ihai where hieyarchy 0f apgeals is pmxéded by the stgtute. party must exhausi the stamicry remedies before resorting in Wm §ur§sdiction.” 5; Further, appiying the said ratio in UF. State Spinnieg Co. Ltd. vs. REL Pandey and another2, the Howbég Supreme Court Cabsewed as under: ”2?. §n UP. State Bridge Comm. Ltd. v. UP. Ra§ya Satu Nigam S.Karmacha;§ Sangh, it Waa he§d that when the dispute reiaies m enfofcemené of a righi or obiigatécm under the etatute and specific remedy is: them‘fere, emvideij um‘a the statuie, ihe High Cami shouid not deviate fmm ihe genera? View and Enterfere under Artécle 226 except when a yery streng ease £5 made cut fer making a deparfure. The pereon whe insists upon such remedy sari evaii ef the pracese as provideci Lmder ”the séa’mie. Te fhe same effect are the decisions in Premief Automcbiies Ltd. V. Kamiekar Shaniaram Wadke. Raiasihan SRTC v. Ki‘is’nna Kant, Chandiakanz Tukeiam Nikam V. Mumieipai Cerpa. cf Ahmedabad and in Scooters indie vs. Viiai EV. Eidred.” 7“} in another decision on the concept of maintainabiiity oi writ petition vis-é—vis avaiiebility of alternative remedy, the Hon’bie Supierne {303m in Secy. UP. High Sciiooi & iniei’media’ze Educa'iioe, faiiahabae & another v. i-iK iaig, observed ae undei: “4. Frem i‘ne records ii is berne out the? the quesiien asto whether the respendeni has a iegai rigni to eiter his date of binn reeerded in the ceriificate granied e; the Boerci was pending sensieieraiien befere tiie aepeiiaie Couri. The wrii. eeii'iien iiieci by 'ine respondent shouici, thereiore, noi have been enteriained eerticuiariy in triew oi the feet that the appeai thereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdietion is discretionary jurisdiction and sheeid not erdinariiy be exereised ii there is art aiternative remedy.” 8) A common thread running into the dicta iaid down ’oy the Hori’bie Supreme Court in the aforementiened cases is that normaiiy the High Court shouid not interfere if tnere is an adequate efficacious aiternative remedy where hierarchy of appeais is provided by the statute, perry must exiiaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ juriedictien, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. 9) This Court also in Chandrika Praised $ahu anoi others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ifiiiirii Petition (5} No. 4597 0t 2i308‘, decided on 28-8—20G8, reiying on various decisions oi Hon‘inie Supreme Court on the 2 (2QQ5) 8 SCC 264 3 (2037) 2 sec 216 questicn 0f aitematkve remedy, Observed thai ”normaiiy the Ha’gh Cow: shauid not interfere if thefe is aa adequateffa‘icacieus aiiema‘th/e mmeciy I where hierarchy of appeais is provided by the siatute, parry must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting i0 writjurisdiciion, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. ’18) in v‘iew of the foregoing, wishcut expressing any opin'aon on merits, this petmon §s dismissed as not mairxtainabie at irre admission stage iiseif. However, liberty is reserved to rhe petitioner to ieke recourse ‘ro tiee aiternarive srarutory forum trier may be avaiiabie i0 the peiriioner under the provisions of iaw’ if so advised. ‘ i ’i’i) Consequentiy, i.A.No.i siaoois ciisposed of. r i Sd/_ Satish K.Agnihotri 5 7 Judge i if Vi i ‘J ,r i