'^^ ..v-'r W y ^' •«'' P<=iA5tir,n, 1hd ^.l ^J ^tt b ca CHt Guhri Ram Thakur, S/o. Aatma Ram Thakur, aged aboui 53 years, Caste: Ha.'ba, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Tahsi! ; //"^*''. (1-'<->,1. 2^ Versus isoondents te of Chhattis i, U 1 secs Departmsnt of Psnchayat & Socia! Weifare Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhav.'an, Raipur, Districf Ralpur (CG). ,^f^y :/j^2ti"i^!nia\<'-sf ?<?'-cirt^H\ Q; [r'~° ;^i.ui , tr'cti iirfi layd). ui!<Riii--su, i-ii'ui^, r^'<:^*'t^f P^s ir^ /i^*f"S'i i^tsS't.t ti^i. iu/Ut^ ^\^'<*^^. 3. The Additionai CoSiector, Durg, District Durg (CG). 4. Sub Divisiona! Officsr (Revenue), Ba!oy, Hi^fri.r-t' Hiirn 't^a "*t iurg 5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat: Gurur, District Durg (CG). 6. Yashwant Kumar S/o. Brij Lai Sahu,aged about: Unknown, R/o. Vi'Sage: Bharda, Tahsii: Gurur, District Durg (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Bflr. Satish K. Agnihofri, J. Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, co'unse! for the petitioners. Shri Aiok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. -w on tnis 29"' day QT septemBer, 200V) Learned counsei appearing for the petmonsr submits that the Sub Divlsiona! Officsr by ordsr dated 8-9-2008 (Annexurs P/1) has removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharda, Tahsit: Gurur, District Durg, in axeroise of his power under Section 40 ofths Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyanr*, 1993 (Tor short, "the Adrtiniyam, 1993"), without ''f^S.^'^Ss^:: 'f'. iWS% ^ •2-- foiiowlng basic DrinclDles of naturai justice. There is an efficaclous and statutorv remedv available under the Drovisions of Secfion 91 of the Adhinivam, 1993. Learned counsei further submits that the aopeal cannot be Dreferred to the Coiiector as the oroceedinas have been initiated at the instance of Addjtiona! Coitector by memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P/3). 2) After hsaring learned counset appearlng for fhe petitloner and on perusal of the pieadings, it is evident that the memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P./3) was to take steos to remove 'the oetitioner after foilowina due Drocess of ia'tV and In accordance with iaw. Ths comDlaint of the getitloner is that the &rincipies of natura! justice have not been foiiowed. The memo does not direct the Sub Divisional OITicer to take action aaalnst the petitioner without compiying with fhe principles of natural justica. Thus, if jt is trus, the petitioner has every right to take recourse to theappea! before ihe Coiiector under the provlslons of law. 3) Normaily the Hlah Court shouid not snterfsre if there is an adecsuate efficacious aitemative remedy where hierarchy of appeais is provided by the s'tatute, Dartv must exhaust the statutori/ remedv before resortina to 'wrlt iurisdiction. exceDt v.'hen a vsro strona case is made out for making a dsparture. (See State oi H.P. and offwrs v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement end anoifter1, U.P.State Sp'nning Co. Lfei v. R.S.Pendey and anothei^ ano Secy. (y P HiQfj 3^^0^ ^ jnt^HT^sdiBt^ E^uc-ation. ^iiahabBd ^ Bnoths^ v. H.K.LBf, '»' Dh^ni^ir -^sif?£sr Msii-^ l in v ^f'sf^ e^f !.] P ^nfi ^fh^afv!t MP.?? jndi/stn^'s DsvBiQ0yn^nt Cof^ofBtion d Anf. v. Jahsn Kh^n snd Popcofn ther v. City Sn ' yuu:«n &CC 4"y •' (2005) 8 SCC 264 .-•f2007)2SCC2I6 '(2007)SSCC338 &TT? 'tnn'7 s/^ 'i'i -^'? j~U JX A VU .' i.iiu.' */ -t ^. ^.Ay:.. '•""•BT^^" .3 (S^ another with Piatsnum Entertajnment and another v. Citv Industiia! 4) For the rsasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed as not maintainabie. However, it is open to the oetitloner, if so advised. to orefer an appea! before the ColSector as provided under the provisions of law. 5) Conseauently. !.A.No.1 stands disoosed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -laiu ^ (2QG7) 9 SCC 59^ 1