IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: / 1) /2) w. P.(C)No ggae A2010 Ramsingh S/O Uderam Aged about 40— years President of “Anusuchit Jati Machhuara Samooh Bhalwahi (Lagara " / 2. Guharam S/O Lachhiram Aged about 36 years /3. Raghulal S/O Daduram Aged about 36 years 4. Krishna Kumar S/O Uderam Aged about 26 years / 5. Battulal S/o Shobharam aged about 39 years. All the above petitioners are resident of Village— Bhalwahi (Lagara)_police station — Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir—Champa & occupation — Agriculture (Fishery) /3) W> / VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh , Through its Secretary The Agriculture department (Fishery) D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector District ~Janjgir Champa (C.G.) The Chief Executive officer JanpadxPanchyat ~Pamgarh District— Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) w/ gm} / strttrr atrium g Q) , @@ The President (Smt. Madhu Khare ) Sakshi 'Vishwa swa Sahayata Samooh Village- Bhalwahi ( Lagara) police station —Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) N WRIT PETITION UNDER AURTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , \ Y‘ AFI‘ jlJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.5366 OF 2010 ‘L PETITIONERS Ramsingh & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K.‘Agnihotri, J. Shri Ravi Maneshwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 20‘ day of September, 2010) 1) Heard learned ’counsel for the parties. It is not disputabte that the fisheries policy for grant of ponds for fishing purpose is governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. There is a provision for preferring an appeal under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995") whereby if an order passed by the Gram Panchayat, the same is appealable to Sub Divisional Officer, if it is passed by the Janpad Panchayat, the same is appealable to the Collector and in case of Jila Panchayat, the appeal lies before the Director of Panchayat. In the case on hand, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed ctor. Thus, the petitioners may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Rules, 1995. The petitioners, in fact, had already approached the Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, District—Janjgir—Champa on 31/07/2010. Without waiting for the decision of the Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, the petitioners have approached this Court. I do not express any opinion whether approaching the Deputy Director was in accordance of law or not. However, under the provisions of law, statutory alternative appeals are available to the petitioners, there is no reason to depart from normal rule of taking recourse to statutory forum and appeal, which are available to the petitioners. The Supreme Court in A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel and Others’, observed / as under : ”6. ‘ln a catena of decisions it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution .of India should not 1 (2006) 5 SCC 469 Q @ e be entertained when the statutOIy remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 7, ln U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S, Karamchari Sangh, it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is‘, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To the same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd‘ v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad and Scooters India v. Vijai E.V. Eldred.” @ Applying the well settled principles of Iaw to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is ismissed as not maintainabe at the motion stage itself. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to statutory forum that may be available to them under the provisions of Iaw. satis Gr owi sal— hK. Agnmm V Judge d l