Smt. Arshina Koshle vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1147 Chatt

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1147 Chatt
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2023

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Arshina Koshle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 February, 2023

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR


             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          WPC No. 924 of 2023

    Smt. Arshina Koshle, W/o Pradeep Koshle, Aged About 39 Years,
      Sarpanch - Gram Panchayat Anandgaon, Janpad Panchayat Berla,
      District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration,
      Mahanadi     Bhawan,    Atal   Nagar,    New     Raipur,   Mantralaya,
      Chhattisgarh.

   2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bemetara, District :
      Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

   3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (R) Berla,
      District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

   4. Secretory Amit Kumar Soni (Some Were In The Order Amit
      Dewangan Was Mentioned) Gram Panchayat Anandgaon, Janpad
      Panchayat Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

   5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Tahsildar, Tahsil Berla, District :
      Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

                                                         ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Adv. With Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv.

For State          : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A.

                  Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                             Order on Board
23.02.2023

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), District- Berla.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and as per law because the order of Sub-Divisional Officer is appealable. Reliance has been placed on this Court's judgment dated 05.01.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No. 555 of 2016.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere availability of alternative remedy is not a ground to question the maintainability of a writ petition as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the present petition is maintainable and deserves to be decided on merits.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Ramkali Raj vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others passed in Writ Appeal No. 555/2016 vide order dated 05.01.2017 has observed in paras 22, 23 & 24 as under:-

22.In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that there is no merit in the contention of Shri Shrivastava that merely because the Collector is the authority prescribed to hear the appeal, the Petitioner cannot expect justice for him. There are various laws in which administrative officer also exercise judicial or quasi- judicial powers. Merely because they have a dual role, is not sufficient to hold that there is an element of bias. That brings us to the next question as to whether the petition should have been rejected holding that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy.

23. The writ courts have prescribed a self limitation which over a period of time has virtually developed into a rule that when there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to a party, the writ court will normally not entertain the petition. We may make it clear that if the order challenged is wholly without jurisdiction or passed beyond the period of limitation or in any other special circumstances, the writ court may even entertain a petition even though there is an alternative efficacious remedy. However normally this should not be done and if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available, the party cannot be relegated to recourse to the remedy available to it.

24. The rule of alternative remedy is a rule of prudence. It is a rule of practice. It is a procedural rule. It does not take away the right of the parties. What it does is to relegate the party first to some other remedy and then he can again come to the Court. In exceptional circumstances, this rule can be waived and the writ court can even entertain a writ petition.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment passed by this Court, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days from today before the Collector, the same shall be treated to be within limitation and it shall be disposed of by the Collector in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of 90 days.