d» ^^. :•»•^.' ^l^^ -^5^L ?'°...••••• ,•.'**'•" 8ill!MB-i :.: A 'ii '-vff d ;. c ^' fc9d t;4.--""' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(QNo. ,yU<=> /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1] -2] /-3] /4] ^5] Women's Self Help Group, Gram Panchayat, Dandkarwa, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.), through: its President Neera Devi, W/o. Keshavlal, aged about 39 years, R/o. vitlage Dandkarwa, District SurgLija (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department ofFood, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector (Food), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) Assistant Food Olficer, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) Chitrabhan Singh Sidar, Assistant Food OfHcer, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETLTION^JNDER ART!CLE226^)F THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A .,,!fV3tCS,. ,^-1*1^""%, y ft....... i '5&i'K''i!.. ^ 5 ^•.h^-y f^f^' .<gto- <'^ n-;! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) No. 2760 of2010 PETITIONER : Women's SelfHelp Group. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 18th day of June, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Pratappur, District Surguja i.e. the respondent No. 3, whereby the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a selfhelp group ofGram Panchayat Dandkarwa, Pratappur, District Surguja. A fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 7.7.2006 by the respondent No. 3. Shri Paranjpe farther submits that since a complaint was made to the respondent No. 3 against the respondent No. 4, Assistant Food Officer, Pratappur, alleging that he has demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner for running the fair price shop, instead oftaking action against the respondent No. 4, the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner-group has been cancelled vide order dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) without affording any opportunity ofhearing or without any show cause notice. 3. Shri Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer appearmg for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4, submits that there is an altemative statutory remedy available to the petitioner for redressal ofhis grievances. ~~1 ":':^-3~^^^':"' Shri Paranjpe further relies on a decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Committee ofManagement & another v. Vice Chancellor & Others and submits that even if there is an alternatiye remedy available, the High Court can entertain a petition under its writjurisdiction. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The reliance of leamed counsel for the petitioner on Committee of Management & another (supra) wherein it was observed that availability of altemative remedy itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refiise to exercise its jurisdiction. In a case where altemative remedy is not efficacious, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain a petition directly against any order even ifthe statutory appeal is provided. It is not a case of the petitioner that if the petitioner approaches the altemative fomm, that will not be aii efficacious and effective remedy. It is trite a law that a departure from general rule may be made only in exceptional cases. This is not an exceptional or special case wherein departure from normal rule i.e. taking recourse to alternative statutory forum, be made. There is no reason to entertain this petition directly when the petitioner has not exhausted all the statutory appellate remedy available to him. There is no departure in Committee of Management <& another (supra) from the well settled principle of law on availability of alternative remedy. The High Court may exercise its jurisdiction wherein the altemative remedy is not effective and efficacious and there is a violation of fundamental rights. The case on hand is not one of those cases wherein the departure should be made from the normal rule. This Court, in Maa Sharda Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Pratappur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another, U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. 'AIR2009 1159 2 2008 (3) CGLJ 482 3 (2005) 6 SCC 499 ;-'¥"%;{.. ...A "•t. 9. R.S.Pandey and another and Secy. U.P. High School & Jntermediate Education, Allahabad & another v. H.K.Lal, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others , M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan Khan and Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another held that normally, the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to alternative statutory forum, that may be available to him, under the provisions oflaw, ifso advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit