Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 280 (CHH)

GUHRI RAM THAKUR v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-09-29

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2008
ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 8-9-2008 (Annexure P/1) has removed the petitioner from the post ofSarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharda, Tahsil; Gurur, District Durg, in exercise of his power under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adniniyam, 1993 (for short, "the Adhiniyam, 1993"), without following basic principles of natural justice. There is an efficacious and statutory remedy available under the provisions of Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal cannot be preferred to the Collector as the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of Additional Collector by memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P/3). 2. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the memo dated 19-3-2008 (Annexure P/3) was to take steps to remove the petitioner after following due process of law and in accordance with law. The complaint of the petitioner is that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The memo does not direct the Sub Divisional Officer to take action against the petitioner without complying with the principles of natural justice. Thus, if it is true, the petitioner has every right to take recourse to the appeal before the Collector under the provisions of law. 3. 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. (See State of HP and others Vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another1,' UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey and another2 and Secy. UP High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another Vs. H.K. Lal, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of UP. and others, M.P.State Agro industries Development Corporation & Anr. v Jaha/1 Khans and Popcorn Entertainment and another Vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another Vs. City Industrial Development Corpn.And another. 4. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to prefer an appeal before the Collector as provided under the provisions of law. 5. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Petition Dismissed.