^ ^ '\ HIGH.CQURT.QFCHHATTISGAKH^ AT B1LASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No. 4658 of2008 1. Goverdhaa Lal Nishad Aged about 30 Years S/o Sliri Ajit Shigli Nishad, Slriksha Kanni Grade-II, High School Kurrutola, Block Charama, District Kaiiker (C.G.) 2. Homan Lai Hirwani, Aged about 38 Yeare, S/o Slm Guhari Rani Shiksha Kanm "Grade-II, Navin Middle School Tuegahaii, Block Charama, 3. Manoj Kumar Durgaasi Aged about 36 Years, S/o Shri Bris Ram Durgaasi, Sliiksiia Kamii Grade-II, Middie School Chapeli, Block- Charama- District -Kaiiker(C.G.) 4. Santosh Kumar Singh, aged about 29 Years, S/o Shri L.P.Singli, Shiksha Kamri Grade - II, Govt. High School Tudge, Block - Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker (C.G.) 5. Prem Singh Uike, Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Surju Ram Uike, Sliiksha Karmi Grade-II Middle School Chichgaon, Block Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) 6. Fanesh Kumar Sahu, Aged about 29 years, S/o Stiri Mansha Ram Sahu, Shiksha Kanni Grade II, Navia Middle School Khadgohi. Block Charaiiia, Disttict Kaiiker (C.G.) 7. Chandra Shekhar Markaam Aged about 29 yeare, S/o Shri Paiiku Ram Markaain, Shiksha Karmi Grade - II, Middle School Jabeli, Block Koyalibeda, District Kaiiker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ;'l. State of Chhattisgarh Through fhe Secretary, Panchayat and Graima Vikas Department, DKS Bhavaa, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. DirSctor, Directorate Panchayat Evani Saaiaj Kalyan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. CoIIector, Disfaict Uttar Bastat- Kaiiker (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive QiScer, Jila Panchavat District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) WKIT,PEI"mON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r?1 ^w. Present: Stiri Mateea Siddique, Advocate for the petitionera. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3. •' (Passed on26ffiday<5:Algust, 2008) L<amed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners subinits that tlie respondent-authorities have tailedto uaderstand the purport ofthe order wfaereiii. before oassine the impusned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Aanexure P/l), prmciples of natairal justice was required to be fflHi'Ut "it!:S^ist!SSs»:S^ses^iL^^:-:.: %.:.ga^^aSSS'^SSSgi ^ 2. 3. 4. ^w. -z- complied wifh. It is fiirther contended that show cause notice was issued on one ground and the impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P/l) were passed on different ground. No show-cause-notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners in respect offhe ground, which was taken for passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, since it involves question of facts which can be coasidered only by the appellate authority, thus, this case is not one offhecase wherein departure from normal rule ofresortma to statutory forum, be allowed. (See State ofH.P. and others v. Gujarat Ainbuja Cement and anotkeri, U.P.State Spmmng Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and another^ and Secy. U.P. H'.gh School & Intermediate Education, Alkihabad & another v. H.K.Lai, Dhampur Sugar MillsLtd. v. StateofUJP. and others , M.P.State Agrolndustries Devekipment Corporation &Anr. y. Jahan Khan and Popcom Entertamment and another v. Cify Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platimim Entertainment and another v. Citylndv.strial Development Corpn. andanotker ). A common thread mnning into the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in tiie aforementioaed cases is that, nonnallv the Hiah Court should not interfere if fhere is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy where hierarchy ofappeals is provided by the gtatute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very sfrong case is made out for maldng a departure. Applyins fhe well-settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not mamtaiaable as no strong case has been made out for exercise of extraordinan' discretionar;' jurisdiction in favour of tfae petitioners. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to altemative statutory tomni, raising all the srounds, available to the petitioners, if so advised. No order asto costs. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, application for interim relief; also stands disposcd of. SdA satishK.Agnfflotri £3vr^_ Judge' r '(2005) 6 SCC 499 '(2005) 8 SCC 264 3(20a7)2SCC2I6 4 (2007) S SCC 338 5AIB.2007SC3153 " (2007) 9 SCC 593 'fpiiita- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No. 47 of 2008 Applicants (Petitioners) 4. |El 6. 7. Versus •«• Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Govardhan Lal Nishad, Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ajit Singh Nishad, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, High School Kurrutola, Block- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) Homan Lal Hirwani, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Guhari Ram Shiksha Karmi Grade- II, Navin Middle School Tuegahan', Block- Charama, District-Kanker (C.G.) Manoj Kumar Durgaasi, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Bris Ram Durgaasi, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Middle School Chapeli, Block- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) Santosh Kumar Singh, Aged about 29 years, S/o Shri L.P.Singh, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Govt. High School Tudge, Block- Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) Prem Singh Uike, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Surju Ram Uike, Shiksha Karmi, Grade- II, Middle School Chichgaon, Block- Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) Fanesh Kumar Sahu, aged. about 29 years, S/o Shri Mansha Ram Sahu, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Navin Middle School Kahadgohi, Block- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) Chandra Shekhar Markaam, aged about 29 years, S/o Shjri Panku Ram Markaam, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Middle School Jabeli, Block- Koyalibeda, District- Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Departinent, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Director, Directorate Panchayat Evam Sainaj Kalyan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Distric.t Uttar Bastar Kanker (ChhattXsgarh) (Application for Review of the order dated 26.8.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4658/2008) (By Circulation in Chaiaber of Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J) lIIB!i»<5.i«jittjaJi] \ .f JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this 21st day ofNovember, 2008) 1. This review petition is considered in Chamber in view of the provisions of sub rule (2) of Rule 90, under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. There is delay of three days in filing the review petition. The delay is condoned. 3. The petitioners seek review of the order dated 26A August, 2008. passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4658 of 2008 ( Goverdhan Lal Nishad & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), on several grounds. 4. The petitioners basically seek review on the ground stated in para 20 of the petition, which reads as under:- "20. That the fallowing proposition would em.erge as grounds of review ofthe order of the Hon'ble Court dated 26/08/2008; (a) Rules, 1995, 1997 and 1999 would clinch the issue only when the respondents would have acted in difference to the aforesaid rules and not otherwise. (b) This Hon'ble Court would have jurisdiction ofreview of its own order dated 26/08/2008 because the current legal position in all the aforesaid cases presumably was not cited at the bar. fc) The appellate authority is non-descript and not clearly mentioned in the given facts and circumstances of the case because the impugned order of major penalty having been proceeds and passed by the respondent CEO necessarily required ratification by the General Administrative Committee of the respondent Zila Panchayat which was nullity in law. (d) The Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to appreciate whether the import ofthe order dated 26/08/2008 •'s' s 'l •ff i i 3 ^ffl i'-ti' ^. 'SV3'Ss~.. i ^^. '"•:?-;^:r"^^ was correctly understoqd and actuated by the respondents and which ejfigency not being available the appellate authority uvpuld have no jurisdiction to set right such wrong done to the applicants. (e) The termination of the applicants not being provided for, the impugned orders of removal from. the service could not have been m.ade and which legal conflict of expression may not be settled by the appellate authority if any. (f) The respondent CEO without any jurisdiction or authority could not have applied the ratio of the order/judgment made in the case of Rekha Singh & Others v. State of Chh.attisgarh & others, when the applicants have m.ade elaborate submission to the satisfaction of the respondent and without the appoin.ting authority deciding to issue any such intimation letter the executwe fiat of the respondent CEO over runthe statutory jurisdiction ofthe General Adnunistrative Committee of the respondent Zila Panchayat. (g) The respondent CEO having been conferred the jurisdiction to pass only the minor penalty could not have assume such jurisdiction to wnpose major penalty on the applicant without any authority of law thus rendering the impugned termination orders legally impermissible." ^E. 5. The main writ petition was disposed. of not on consideration of merits of the case but on the ground of availability of the adequate, efEcacious and alternative remedy where the hierarchy of appeals is provided in the statute. The grounds raised in this review petition hy referring to several rules and decisions -of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this High Court on merit, is not relevant, as the main writ petition was not considered ISK 7. •w-. on merits. The petitioners may raise the same grounds on merits before the statutory appellate forum. This Court after having considered various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 26.8.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4658 of 2008 observed as under:- 3.A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Suprem.e Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally the High Court should not interfere is there is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party mus( exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made outfor m.aking a departure. 4. Applying the well-settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable 'as no strong case has been made out for exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to altemative statutory forum, raising all the^ grounds, available to the petitioners, if so advised. No order asto costs. The petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioners have not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts naade by the petitioners. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit -of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of p a ^ 8. 9. the Constitution. The petitioners have not produced any new ground for review. The petitioners by presentation of this rpview petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on raerits under the garb of the review pedtion which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be perraitted to argue the entire case afresh which would ainount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary1, Lily Thomas ete. Vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government ofT.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm 8s Hydropower Ltd., and others5. As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. ;' : SatishK.Agiuiitocri ^sw^ Judge' ^ .•:^^ri-4^s^fe^%:@^^%^^S^j^^^,