::.? A ii' a-mcsni y HIGH COUKT OF CHHATT'ISGAmi Arr BILASPUR PETITIONER 8ESPONDENTS WRIT PETriION (S) No. 3668 d?2008 Kumari Bharti BoAer D'o Siiri ^,·f ^ Rf^-^r ^o^r3 '^/? ^^'T!—1 P./^ V^l^m ivi.i."i.£3Uii\.^z^ ligsu ^A* ysiii"^., i^-.'o VllIa.gS Block and Tahsii Ci'iarama District North Bastar Kaifcsr (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of' Chhatlisgarh throueh Secrctan' raliC.a<iV<Al <^.ui Kuftii iJttVSiODnisiH D.K.S. Bhawan, Maim'ala'va, Raipur /',<^ rf"l 'l. (C.U.) 2. Chief Execistive Officer. Jila P-anchavar Ksu'ilcsr, Ois'trict Noiui Bas'i^i'' EZiiiik.sr' (C.0.~) WR1T PETI"riC)N UNDER AR'IlCLE 226 OF THE COJS!'S'ITnjTi0^4 Or NDIA SB: Hoai'ble Shri Satislt K. Agiiyiotri, ,1, Present: Shri.K.ahi.il ,?ha, Airvocate :fartlie pctitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govermnent Advocatc fcr the StaEe/i'espoadsiit Nc. 1 1^. (Passed oal^AiyaFAug'jst, 2008) Leamed coiinsel appeanng fbr the petitionei' submits tbat the respondent-autiiorities have failed to understEuid the purport of'fae order wherein, before passing the impusaied orders datcd 23.05.2008 ?IAn"exure P/10X principles of natiiral iusace was reCjiursd to be comolied with. It is mrUier eontended that sbo'w cause notice wa.s issued on oae ground and the impuaned orders dated 23.05.2008 fAsasxi.sre P/10) 'were passed on diiferent sjoiind. No sljow-caiise-Eotice or opportimity of hearing was aflbrded to ths pefatioser m respsci ot' •'be STound. wmeh was tafcen tbr Dassma; the impugBed OTder. Be '&at as it may, smce it mvolves ques.tion of tacts vi'iiicii UaB. be coasidered oiilv bv the appeilate auttioritv- tcus, this case is not one of fhe case wherein departure it'om aonrsal ru!e or reso'Eng to stanitorv fbrum, be allowed. F"" •z~ J. On e Hoii'bli the question of availabilitv of altemative remsdv. Supreme Court in the matter of State af H.P. and othe'v v. Guwrci Ambr.ja Cement and anotker , observed as luider: 17. We shal! first deal with the plea regardmg alteniative reiiiedy as raised by the appellatu. Statc. Exce[3t lur a period whea Article 226 was amended by tfae Constihrtion (Forty- second Amsudment) Act, 1976, the power relatmg to alteniative remedy has been considered to be a i-ule of sslr- istiposed iiEsitatioa. It is esseiitiaily a iisls of policy, convenience and discretiou and never a rule oflaw. Dsspite !the existeace of aa altemative remedy, it is within !the iurisdiction of discretion of Ihe Coiirt to granl relii Liruler Articls 226 of fbe Constitution. Al. ths same time. rt :annot be lost sieht. ofthat tlie matter relatmg to an alteraative remedy has uu&ing to do wstfa ths jurisdiction of the case, normally ihe High Court should not interfere if'there is ari adequatc ©ffie^ciouss,lteiii^tivs reiiiedy. If soniebody approaches 'the High Court wifhoiit availing flie aMsmatrve reniedy provided the IIigh Cocrt should eiisuie 'tliaS he has made out a strong case or that fhere sxis't good srouads to ii'E.YOl-Cs; tllc Gj<tf£L()iuUl^I*Tv"lU.nsdlCtlOll. G.VeeraDva Pslla v. Raman & Raman Ltd. L/<-.. F Dunlop India Ltd.; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State af' Tripura, Shsvsonda Anna Patn v. State of Maharashtra: r^f ^ /(^^.^;^/,...-,.. -,. r!T.^ 'TT:.*,^^^..,.^ T}^^^^ s^??- '^r" T i-^ .^ c^,— .~-i" ^-^-^.^iOT'cinG.i'n v. 11^,1 iiagnuT rupor M.iiis ^O. L,i€i'V. ^luie OJ Orissa; H.B.Gandh' v. Gopi Nath and Sons: Wl'iirlpooi Corpn. v. Registrar afTrade Marks; Tin Plate Co. uf indiu Ltd. v. State ofBihar. SheelaDevi v. Jaspal Singh artd Pimjab National Bcmk v. O.C.Krishnan, this Court heid that where hierarchY of appeals is provided by tfae sf.iitute, pany must sxhaiist 'th& statutc'ty Feincdiss bcibrs i^sortiug to wTit jiirisdietion. Ltrther.' applviaa the said ratio in fhe matter of U.P.State Suiwime Co. ,td. v. R.S.Pancley and anothef , tbe Supreme Court obse"7ed as iinder: "21. fc U.P.State Br'dse Cofsn. Ltd. v. U.P.Rafva Seti.i Nigam S.Karmachari Scmgh, it was he.ld tiiat when tfae dispute relates to snlbrcement of a riidit or obligation under the statufce and specific remedy is, fhsrefbre, provided under thc statirte, ftie Hiali Court sliouid not deviate from fee generai view aiid icterferfi i.mder Article 226 excispt wlvsii a very sh-oag case is made out for mai.das a departure. The person who iiisisSs upoa such resiiedy caii avai! of the pToeess as provided under the statute. 'To the sa.me effect are the usCjSioiis in £ re'n's.iQT Aiito'j'nooiies Ltu. v. Ku?nle/Ci2f~ r,iU03i & S1. 4yy (2005) 8 SCC 264 ..ff' '/?• .^" o, Shantctram Wadke, Rajasthan SfVFC v. Krisiwa Karst, Chandrakant Titkai'am Nikam v. Muniapal Corpn. of Ahmedabad and in Scooters ^lndic v. Vr/is E.V.Eldred. In aaother decision on the concept ot' maiHtairiabiiatv of v/rit petit:,on vis-a-vis availability of1 aitemative remedy, the Supreme Court m tbe maiter ofSecy/. U.P. High School & Intermeciiate Education, Atlahahcsd & anotherv. H.K.Laf, obserred as imder: "4. From tlie records it is bonie out tnat the questioa asto ^/h^fhsr ths respondent ha-s a. isg&I rigiit 'to ausr Iiis dafce c'i: birth recorded m the cerfcificate granted by the Board was pending coasideratioa befbre 'tiie appeliats Court. Tlie writ oetition filsd bv the respondent should, theretbre, "ot have been enfertamed particulariy ia view of tfae lact that thc appeal thereagainst was p'endiag. Wnt jurisAction is diBCTstio;?iaTy jurisdictiofi fiiid shouid ^ot oTdm^?ily bs exercised if'there is an altemative resiedv. A eommoii thread ninmng iato the dicta laid down bv the Supreme Court m the aforemeiitiuaed cases is that, aormally ftte Hidi Court should not mterfere if there is an adequate etBcacioiis attemauve remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by tJie statute, party raust exhaust the slatat"ry remedy be:rbre resorting to wrrt jurisdictioE, except whfiii a vew strong case is raade out Sor snalcing a departure. Appiying 'the well-settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Coun on fhe issue of availabilitv of altemative resiedv to ths facts of the case, this oetition is dismissed as not mamtamable as no strons case has been made out :for exercise of extraorditiar^' disct-etionary jurisdiction in favour ofthe petitios.ers. However, liberty is reservsd to ths petiti.oner bi take recouree to atteraative stataton' fbrum, raising all Sis srouads, avaiiabie to the petitioner. ifso advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge