JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 673 of 2024 (Smt. Manita Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the in the present case where a glance of writ petition entitles appellant/writ petitioner the relief claimed and irony is that in the writ petition itself the appellant/writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 and dealt with the aspect of availability of alternate remedy and when alternative remedy will not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which also includes the exception under Clause 27.3 and the appellant/writ petitioner's case comes within the purview of Clause 27.3 (a) & (b) and relying on the said judgment and without looking into the crux of the petition or examining the issue raised of hot haste removal of elected Sarpanch has not been considered by the writ Court or considered in the manner not warranted under the law. He also submits that the appellant/writ petitioner is well aware while filing petition before the learned Single Judge about the aspect of alternate remedy and therefore, in Para 8.5 of writ petition has dealt with this aspect of the matter and submitted before the writ Court the hot haste shown in removing the appellant/writ petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and in a democratic country elected person should not be removed and if removed in the said manner then the writ Court being sentinel qui ve of the protection of fundamental and constitutional rights, has the duty to protect elected office bearers. In democracy elected office bearers should not be removed from the office as the democratic set up of the country is the basic feature of the Constitution. In democracy elected office bearers should not be removed from the office as the democratic set up of the country is the basic feature of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ravi Yashwant Bhori vs. District Collector Raigad & Others, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 has dealt with democratic set-up of the country and its protection by the Court by saying that "the democratic set up of the country has always been recognized as the basic feature of the constitution like other features eg. supremacy of constitution, rule of law, principle of separation of powers, power of judicial review under Articles 32, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India etc. "Basic" means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the people in running the administration of the government. It conveys the state of affairs in which each citizen is assured of the right of equal participation in the polity. It is not permissible to destroy any of the basic features of the Constitution, therefore, it is beyond imagination that it can be eroded by the executive on its whims without any reason. The Constitution accords full faith and credit to the act done by the executive in exercise of its statutory powers, but they have a primary responsibility to serve the nation and enlighten the citizens to further strengthen a democratic State. However, wherever the executive fails, the Courts come forward to strike down an order passed by them passionately and to remove arbitrariness and unreasonableness, for the reason that the State by its illegal action becomes liable for forfeiting the full faith and credit trusted with it. 4. However, wherever the executive fails, the Courts come forward to strike down an order passed by them passionately and to remove arbitrariness and unreasonableness, for the reason that the State by its illegal action becomes liable for forfeiting the full faith and credit trusted with it. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that in the touchstone of the aforesaid basic features or structure of the Constitution, the violation by the executive and intent of the executives to destroy the democracy in grass root level, if the present case is examined then one and only conclusion which may be drawn is that the hot haste shown by the executive itself entities, the remedy claimed from the writ Court itself and the doors of writ Court ought not to have been closed in the manner as has been done in the present case. While dealing with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, an arbitrariness on the State's action, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Zenith vs. State of Maharashtra, has laid down the law that every action of the State or its instrumentality should not only be fair, legitimate and above board, but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive or discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias favoritism and nepotism. Any thing done in undue haste can only also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. In essence, the action/order of the State or its instrumentality would stand vitiated, if it lacks bonafide as it would only be case of colourable exercise of powers. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. But if a decision is taken in hot haste etc. such a decision is the antethesis to the taken in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner further submits that in the present case in touchstone of aforesaid law, as stated earlier also, one and only conclusion which may be drawn is that the order passed by the executive is liable to be struck down and ought to have been struck down by the writ Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner further submits that in the present case in touchstone of aforesaid law, as stated earlier also, one and only conclusion which may be drawn is that the order passed by the executive is liable to be struck down and ought to have been struck down by the writ Court. A glance of Para 8.5 of writ petition will reveal to this Court that the office of the SDO has received an ex-parte report of the Enquiry Committee dated 10.01.2024 and on 15.01.2024 i.e. within four days, a notice has been issued to the appellant/writ petitioner herein and she has been called upon to submit her reply within seven days positively as it has been said that the proceedings under Section 39 read with section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam of 1993’) will be drawn. It has also been said that said ex-parte inquiry report has been served on appellant/writ petitioner. The haste shown is clear at first point of time at this stage. Second thing which is clear on perusal of the documents filed along with writ petition that said show-cause notice has been served on the appellant/writ petitioner on 17.01.2024 and appellant/writ petitioner being person of Scheduled Tribe has been called upon to give her reply within seven days. He also submits that the appellant/writ petitioner somehow somehow submitted her reply (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition) and each and every aspect of the matter absolving the appellant/writ petitioner from all liabilities or charges almost dealt in the reply dated 22.01.2024. The appellant/writ petitioner has relied upon various orders of the State authorities themselves and stated that in similar complaint already certain proceedings were drawn and the Commissioner Bastar, Division Bastar has passed certain orders rejecting complaint of the complainant vide order dated 26.05.2022 and thereafter, appeal preferred has also been rejected vide order dated 26.06.2023 by the Collector and thereafter, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was invoked in respect of almost similar complaint and the proceedings are pending consideration for 22.01.2024. In reply it has been further stated that in respect of the complaint documents may be summoned from the then Panchayat Secretary and also documents may be summoned from the Gram Panchayat that the complaints made at an earlier point of time have also been found baseless. In reply it has been further stated that in respect of the complaint documents may be summoned from the then Panchayat Secretary and also documents may be summoned from the Gram Panchayat that the complaints made at an earlier point of time have also been found baseless. Somehow to remove the appellant/writ petitioner, the complaint has gone to the extent of saying that the appellant/writ petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and the same has also been found baseless. Thus, about each and every allegation of complaint, the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted reply and said that nothing substantial has been found at previous point of time and if proper inquiry is held following principles of natural justice, then only one conclusion will be drawn that the complaint is baseless and false. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that at this stage the appellant/writ petitioner also submits that time and again complaints have been made against the Scheduled Tribe person i.e. appellant/writ petitioner, and on each occasion they failed. In these circumstances, on submission of reply on 22.01.2023 within a day or two, on 24.01.2024 the order of removal of appellant/writ petitioner was passed relying on ex-parte inquiry report and no opportunity was given to the appellant/writ petitioner to cross-examine any of the persons i.e. complainant etc. and even chief examination of those persons has not taken place and ex-parte enquiry report has been treated as Gospel truth. Thus, in between 15.01.2024 to 24.01.2024 i.e. within 8-9 days the entire action of removal of the appellant/writ petitioner has taken place and in such case the law laid down in the matter of Zenith (supra) is applied, arbitrariness in State action is writ large and the same violates fundamental rights, particularly Article 14 of the Constitution of the India and in such case, writ remedy is the appropriate remedy. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that in matter of Radha Kishan Industries (supra), which is also relied upon by the appellant/writ petitioner and has been quoted in para-15 of the impugned judgment, however, but it has not been applied in present case by writ Court itself as it deals with exception to the rule of alternative remedy. Thus, with all respect to writ Court, it is submitted that here in the present case exception to the rule of alternate remedy which has been quoted in copy-paste manner has not been appreciated. He also submits that a perusal of the impugned order will also reveal to this Court i.e. in para 16 about the writ petition it has been stated that in the presence of the appellant/writ petitioner statements of witnesses were also recorded and if the record of the case is perused will reveal to this Court that it appears that it is not the appellant/writ petitioner in whose presence statements of witnesses were recorded, but statements of witnesses have been recorded in presence of complainant and not in presence of appellant/writ petitioner. 8. Further, if the order of writ Court is tested in the touchstone of law laid down by this Court, under jurisdiction of Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division) Rules, 2006, in WA No. 20 of 2022 (Santosh Nishad vs. State of CG & Others), in which this Court was also dealing with removal of the Sarpanch under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 and about the procedure to be followed while dealing with case of Section 40, this Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Para- 11 held as under:- “11. The enquiry report appears to be prepared on the direction of CEO, Janpad Panchayat and its purpose is only to record prima-facie satisfaction on the allegation of the compliant and if any action is required to be taken for removal of office bearer under the provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the allegations are required to be proved before the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law, who is the authority competent to pass order when the action proposed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 is having civil consequences. The evidence and material forming the basis against appellant were not produced before the authority enabling the appellant to cross-examine those witnesses." 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that WA No.20 of 2022 made part of the writ petition, affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC have been submitted and cross-examination of witnesses has not been given and the same has been found in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that WA No.20 of 2022 made part of the writ petition, affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC have been submitted and cross-examination of witnesses has not been given and the same has been found in violation of principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, when the law laid down by this Court in almost similar circumstances has not been followed, there is need of interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court. Law laid down by this Court is binding on Single Bench and this aspect has been dealt with in catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and appellant/writ petitioner craves leave of this Court to refer to and rely upon the same during the course of arguments. Hence, there is need of interference by this Court in respect of the order passed by the learned Single. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for respondents submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that in the WA No. 20 of 2022, the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules framed thereunder, before the Collector. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.09.2021. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order the Collector/Appellate Authority, had filed writ petition on 06.10.2021 bearing WPC No. 4162 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, appellant preferred an appeal bearing WA No. 20 of 2022 which was allowed, but in the present case the appellant/writ petitioner did not preferred a appeal before the Collector and filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 673 of 2024 and the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition granted a liberty to appellant/writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Collector in accordance with Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 13. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 13. In the matter of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) while dealing with the question of bypassing alternative remedy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up various decisions and held that only in exceptional circumstances, the statutory remedy can be bypassed. The principles summarized are as under:- “i. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; ii. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; iii. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; iv. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; v. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and vi. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with...” 14. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with...” 14. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that in the matter of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that when a right is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also held that the writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy is provided by law. As sufficient opportunity was afforded to the appellant/writ petitioner by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), and the appellant/writ petitioner participated in the proceedings without any objection, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the Collector. 15. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner and also considering the fact that the matter of WA No. 20 of 2022 is distinguishable from the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.