Chattisgarh High CourtSmt. Seema Chandel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 August, 2008HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       

            WRIT PETITION (S)   No. 3415 of 2008

                 1.    Smt.  Seema Chandel

                  2.    Ku.  Sandhya  Uike

                  3.     Ku.   Manju  Naag

                  4.   Smt. Manjulata Prajapati

                  5.   Yashwant Jain

                  6.    Ku.  Mamta Rathore
                                          ...Petitioners

                       VERSUS

                 1.   State    of    Chhattisgarh

                  2.    The   Commissioner

                  3.    The  Chief Executive  Officer

                  4.   The Chief Executive Officer

                  5.   The Chief Executive Officer

                  6.   The Chief Executive Officer
                                             ...Respondents



!         Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioners.

^         Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the
          State/respondents 1 and 2.

          SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.Dated:19/08/2008

:       Judgement



        WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA         


                         ORAL ORDER
           (Passed on 19th  day of  August, 2008)1.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
       that the respondent-authorities have failed to understand
       the  purport of the order wherein, before passing the
       impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P/1), principles
       of natural justice was required to be complied with. It is
       further contended that show cause notice was issued on one
       ground and the impugned orders dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure
       P/1) were passed on different ground. No show-cause-notice
       or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners in
       respect of the ground, which was taken for passing the
       impugned order.2.   Be that as it may, since it involves question of facts
       which can be considered only by the appellate authority,
       thus, this case is not one of the case wherein departure
       from normal rule of resorting to statutory forum,  be
       allowed.3.   On the question of availability of alternative remedy,
       the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofState of H.P. and
       others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cementand another1, observed as
       under:"17.  We  shall  first  deal  with  the  plea
            regarding alternative remedy as raised by the
            appellant  State. Except for  a  period  whenArticle  226was amended by theConstitution
            (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power
            relating  to  alternative  remedy  has   been
            considered  to  be  a  rule  of  self-imposed
            limitation.  It  is  essentially  a  rule  of
            policy, convenience and discretion and  never
            a  rule of law. Despite the existence  of  an
            alternative   remedy,  it   is   within   the
            jurisdiction of discretion of the High  Court
            to  grant  relief underArticle  226of  the
            Constitution. At the same time, it cannot  be
            lost sight of that though the matter relating
            to  an  alternative remedy has nothing to  do
            with  the  jurisdiction of the case, normally
            the  High Court should not interfere if there
            is   an   adequate  efficacious   alternative
            remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court
            without   availing  the  alternative   remedy
            provided the High Court should ensure that he
            has  made  out  a strong case or  that  there
            exist    good    grounds   to   invoke    the
            extraordinary jurisdiction.21.InG.Veerappa Pilla v.  Raman  &  Raman
            Ltd.;CCE  v.  Dunlop India  Ltd.;Ramendra
            Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura,Shivgonda
            Anna   Patil   v.   State   of   Maharashtra;C.A.Abraham v. ITO,Titaghur Paper Mills  Co.
            Ltd  v. State of  Orissa; H.B.Gandhi v.  Gopi
            Nath  and Sons;Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar
            of  Trade Marks;Tin Plate Co. of India  Ltd.
            v.  State  of  Bihar,Sheela Devi  v.  Jaspal
            SinghandPunjab   National   Bank    v.
            O.C.Krishnan,  this  Court  held  that  where
            hierarchy  of  appeals  is  provided  by  the
            statute,  party  must exhaust  the  statutory
            remedies    before    resorting    to    writ
            jurisdiction. "4.   Further,  applying the said ratio in  the  matter  ofU.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandeyand another2, the
       Supreme Court observed as under:"21.InU.P.State  Bridge  Corpn.  Ltd.  v.
            U.P.Rajya  Setu Nigam S.Karmachari 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 underArticle  226except  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  inPremier
            Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke,Rajasthan  SRTC v. Krishna Kant,Chandrakant
            Tukaram   Nikam   v.  Municipal   Corpn.   of
            Ahmedabadand  inScooters  India  v.  Vijai
            E.V.Eldred."5.In another decision on the concept of maintainability
       of writ petition vis--vis availability of alternative
       remedy, the Supreme Court in the matter ofSecy. U.P. High
       School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another v.
       H.K.Lal3, observed as under:"4. From the records it is borne out that the
            question  asto whether the respondent  has  a
            legal  right  to  alter  his  date  of  birth
            recorded  in the certificate granted  by  the
            Board  was  pending consideration before  the
            appellate Court. The writ petition  filed  by
            the  respondent should, therefore,  not  have
            been entertained particularly in view of  the
            fact   that   the  appeal  thereagainst   was
            pending.  Writ  jurisdiction is discretionary
            jurisdiction  and  should not  ordinarily  be
            exercised if there is an alternative remedy."6.   A common thread running into the dictalaid down bythe
       Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally
       the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate
       efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is
       provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory
       remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a
       very strong case is made out for making a departure.7.   Applying  the  well-settled dictalaid  down  bythe
       Supreme Court on the issue of availability of alternative
       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 of the petitioners. However, liberty is reserved to
       the petitioners to take recourse to alternative statutory
       forum,  raising  all the grounds,  available  to  the
       petitioners, if so advised. No order asto costs.JUDGE