HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT^ILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRt DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR.JT I-} WRIT PETITION 10 N0.4273 of 2610 Petjtioner Versus Respondent Patvinder Singh GJII, son of Late Buta Singh GHI, aged about 45 years, resident of Ramaiya Ward, Jagdalpur, District Ba^ar (CG) Chhattisgarh State CivH Supyriies Corponation Ltd., an in^rumentality of the State of Chhattisgarh, through its District Manager, Dhamtari (CG) Present: Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (7{tlSeptember,2010) PerDhiiwidra Mi^va. J The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for j^uance of a writ and/or an order in ttie nature of mandamus directing the respondente to pay an amount of Rs.4,80,440.61 admittedly due and payabte to the ^tftioner tov^rds the transportation charg^. Grievance of the petitioner is that he worked in ttie Base Depot, Chittod, for the respondent-corporation and fransported rice to various d^tinations and compteted the work. He was also required to deposit amounte tov^rds security, earnest money ete., whfch were to be refunded to him after successful completion of the work. However, the respondent-corporation has wthheld a sum of Rs.4,50,440.61 , which is due to the petitioner and whteh is admitted bythe respondent vide their Memo dated 25.8,2009 (Annexure P/1). The amount due has been withheld in view of the tetter dated 21.11.2008 of the head office, however, the tetter aforesaid was issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Relying upon the dedsion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tt mattw Secreta/y, Cannanore DisMct Muslfm Educaffem Assewlaffon, Karimbam Vs. State of Keraia and others reported in (2010^ 6 SCC 373, it is argued that the High Court, especially the writ Court, cannot take a mechanteal or straight jacket approach for exduding judidal review on ttie ground of avaiiabjjjty of atternatjve remedy. .^^m .-^^k ^ ^,, ^,.^y .yK^' @) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings as atso the documents annexed with the petition. The instant petition has been fited on the basis of Memo dated 25.Q.2009 issued by the Distrtet Manager, Dhamtari, of the respondent- corporation, whjch gjves description of the amount withheld from the petjtioner's biHs. The document aiso refers to the order of the headquarters dated 21.11.2008, whereby a direction has been jssued to withheld the amount of Rs.4,50,440.61. The petitioner has not filed any correspondence with the head office of the respondent-corporation in reference to ttieir order dated21.11.2008. The petitioner has also not fited the terms and conditions of the agreement, under which he had undertaken the work of fransportation witti th® fQspondent-corporation and nor there is any pteading in the petitSon Jn this regard. Thus, in the facte of the present case, jf ttie petitioner has any admitted claim against the respondent-corporation, as mentioned jn ttie document of Annexure P/1, and the same has illegally been withheld by the respondent-corporation in pursuance of some letter of the headquarters, the petjtioner has an efficacious altemative remedy of recovering the sam®by fSling a ch^il suit against the respondent-corporation before the competent cjvil Court. In the facte of the present case, we are not indined to admit this petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Reliance ofthe petitioner on the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secr^ary, Cannanore District Mu^im Ediicafkmai Associaticm, Karimbam (supra) is misplaced as the observations made jn para-20 of tiie cited judgment, have been made in the partteular facte of tfiat case and the same has no applicat'ion to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petitton at ttie admfesion sfaige itself on the ground of availabitjty of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^