© HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A.T BILASFUR PETmONER WRn' PETmON (S) No. 41.80 of2008 Vasudeo Prajapati, aged about 30 years, S/o Rajaram Prajapati, R/o Old Malariya QfBce, Blood Bank, B.T.I. Baloda Chowck Road, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. RESPONDENTS : 1. Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Department, D.K.8. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate Panchayat Evam Samaj Seva, Raipur (Chliattisgarh) 3. Collector, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 4. Chief Executive OfEeer, Jila Panchayal, District Uttar Bastar Kaiiker (Chhattisgarh) WRn',PETmONUNDEILASTICyi_216 OF THE CONSTn'l.rTION OF LNDIA SB: Hon'ble Stari Satish K. Asnamtri, J. Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, Advocate tor the petitioner. 31m Amn Sao, Govemnient AdvQcate forthe State/respoadent No. 1 to .-?>. 2. (Passed on 19th day of August, 2008) I-eamed counsei. appearmg for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities have failed to understand the purport ofthe order wherein, before passing the impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Armexure P/l), principles of natural justi.ee was required to be complied wifh. It is farfher contended that show cause notice was issued on one ground and the impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Armexure P/l) were passed on different ground. No show-cause-notice or opportumty of heanng was afforded to the petitioner in respect of the ground, which was taken for passingtbe impugned order. Be fhat as it may, since it involves questioa of facts which can be considered only by fhe appellate authority, fhus, this case is not one of the case wherein departure from normal rule of resorting to statutory fomm, be allowed:' -':'•• ^w. On the question of availability of altemative remedy, the Hon'ble Sapreme Court io. the matter of State of H.P. and others v. Gitjarat Ambiija Cement and anotker/, observed as under: "17. We diall tu-st deal with the plea resarding altemative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except fqr a period when Article 226 was amended by fhe Constitution (FQrty- second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to altemative remedy has been considered to be a mle of self- imposed limitation. It is essentially a ru!e of policy, convenience and discretion and nsver a mte of law. Despite the existeace of ati alteniative remedy, it is wilhia the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to graat relief uader Article 226 of tlie Cotistitution. At t&e saine time, it cannot be lost sight of fhat though fhe matter relating to an alteniative remedy lias iiothiug to do with the jurisdictioii of the case, nonnally the High Court should not interfere ifthere is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy. tf somebody approaches fhe High Court without availing the altemative remedy provided the High Court shouid ensure that he has made out a shrong case or that Ibere exist good grounds to invokefhe extraordinayjurisdiction. 21. La G.Veercsppa Pilla v. Raman & Raman Ltd.; CCE v. Dunhp India Ltd.; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripv.ra, Shivgonda Anna Patil y. State of Maharashtra; CAAbrahamv. ITO, Titaghw'Paper Mills Co. Ltdv. Stateof Orissa; H.B.Gandhi v. Gapi Nath and Sons; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar ofTrade Marks; Tin Plate Co. oflndia Ltd. v. State ofBihar, SheelaDevi v. JaspalSingh andPunfah Nattonal Bank v. O.C.Krishnan, tliis Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by fhe statute, party must exhaust fhe statutory remedies before resortmg to writ jurisdiction." Further, apptying the said ratio in the matter ofU.P.State Spinnmg Co. Ltd. v. P^S.Pandey and another^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "21. In U.P.State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.PJiajya Setu Nigam S.Karfnachari Sangh, it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute aiid specific remedy is, therefore, provided uader the statute, the Higb Court should not deviate from the general view aad interfere uader Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for makii^ a departure. llie persQh who msists upOn such remedy caii avail of the proeess as provided under the statute.To fhe same effect are the decisions iii Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar ' (.iuu5) o iscc 4yy 2 (2005) 8 SCC 264 -3- 6. Shantaram WaeSie, Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant, Chandrakcint Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad and in Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred. " , In another decision oa the concept of mamtainability of writ petition vis-a-vis availability of altemative remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter ofSecy. U.P. High School & Intermediate Educatwn, Allahabad &an6therv.H.K.Laf,observedas'andsr. j "4. From the records it is bome out that the quegtion asto whether the respoadent has a lega! right to alter his date of birth recorded ia the certificate granted by the Board was pending consideration before the appellate Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent should, ttterefore, not have been eiitertained particularly in view of the faet that the appeal fhereagainst was pending. Writ jurisdiction is exercised ifttiere is an altemative remedy. A common fhread running into fhe dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally fhe High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party ^ must exhaustfhe statutory remedy before resortins to writjyrisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out &r making a departure. Applying the well-settled dicta !aid 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 ofthe petitioners. However, liberty,.is reserved to the petitione.r to take recourse to altemative statutory forum, raising all tfae grounds, available to the petitioner, ifso advised. No order asto costs. ^s*. Amit S.^^e