PETméN NDER’AmicLEzzs OF the order dated 17““ March, 290 he petxtxoner. being aggmve by ( rre eiti 8 Am e CE Annexure P/ 1) passed by the Addmonal Collector, allofim pién. UR OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILASP ' . , i « 1 ‘ Stat / ‘ 2 The Collector, (C G) V 3 The Addmonal 4 The Sub istct SurguJa Du I : C g t ollector Ambikapu, D1stnc _ ,V ORAL ORD Passe on 23 .r...‘.——— y of Setember, 2008 (d da p ) btkapur, whereby th of fan‘ nce shop to the petttroner was elled has filed thi ' Em U T d ‘ _ , " .- ' ' : ' e , ‘ p canc, s, t @ appeal are governed cancellanon renewal § ‘ 7 ,Allounenf iof fair price shop, axh Public Distribution System (Control) ‘ the prov1s1ons of Chhattlsg wider tml order was passed by the 0rder 2004 \ The co Order 2004 (for short 3 of the f 1ts power under sectmn t the State ‘Government m exerc1se Essent1a1 Commodmes Act, 1955 The dISmbutIon of essentlat commodmes date ency and proper iimcttonmg Accordmgly an appe prov1sron has been made und r clause 18 of the Order 2004 In the evem, 1f requires exoedr any order, an appeal can be tee shop 1s aggleved by the Collector/Addmonal Collector w1thm a penod of 30 days. Ifthe the Addrtronal Collector/Collector, an appeal 1s order is passed by to the State Government The present unpugned order rs p the a11otee of farr pr made to assed maintainable edy avadable to the thus, the appropuate rem of statutory appeal before the State Gayemment. The " by the Additional Collector petitioner is filing remedy 1s effective and efficaetous Without resorting C urt on the ground that since alternative forum Since the recourse to statutory can be petition is not maintain the ground of availability of alternative the petitioner has rushed to this to the statutory forum. no notrce was gven 1t is not necessary to take grevance of the petitioner : rently thls ble under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on f fomm expeditiously and effic redressed by the appellate statutory remedy rule may be made only in ase wherein rule i e taking recourse to alternative statutory forum, 3 _. lt is trite a law that a departure from general exceptional cases Th1s is not departure horn normal when the, be made There is no reason to entertain this petition directly petitioner has not exhausted all the statutory appellate anexeeptional or speeial c remedy available to mm +¥ Normally the H1gh Court should not Interfere 1f there 1s an adequate efficacmus alternatwe remedy where merarchy of appeals 1s prov1ded by the statute party must exhaust the statutory rem y before resortmg to wrlt Junsd1ct1on excent when a very strong case 1s made out for makmg a departure (See State ofHP and others v Guyarat Ambwa Cement and ’another’ U? State Spmnmg Co Ltd v R SPandey and another: and Secy ' I U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Ailahabqd & another v HKLaF Dhampur Sugar Milk Ltd v State oft/1P. and-others“ MRSta’te Agra TndLstrzes Develapment Carporaaon & Anr V Jahan Khan arrd Popcorn Entertamment and another v Ctty Inwstrzal Devewvment Corpn and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City Industrzal ' Devetopment Corpn. and anotheré ). ‘ 6. In View of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, libetty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to eltemative statutory forum, that may be availableto him, _ under the provisions orfilaw, 1f soadvised. No order asto costs. 7. Consequently, I.A.No. 1, application for grant of ad-interim writ, LA No. 2, application/for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, also stand disposed of. @005) 6 scc 499 H2005) 8 scc 264 3(2007) 2 scc 216 4 (#007) 8 sec 338 5 (2007) 9 SCC 593_ , 5 AIR 2007 sc 3153