Respondents vs Jai Maa Kliaaideshwad Swa Saliayata MahUa

(SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnUiotn J.) Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Shashaiik Thakur, Paael Lawyer for tiie respoudents No. 1 to 3, Shri Shailendra Soni, Advocate for fhe respondent No.4. ORDER (Oral) (Passed on this 31st day ofAugust, 2009) Heard. The petitioner impugns th.e order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P/8), passed by tiie Collector, BUaspur, whereby the order dated

21.4.2009 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), was set aside, By order dated 21.4,2009, haviag been dissatisfied with the reply filed by the respondent No.4, suspendiag fhe aUotment offhe fair price shop, fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue), Bilaspur, declined to continue allotooient of fair price shop to the respondent No.4. Beiiig aggrieved, respondent No.4 approached the CoUector, Bilaspur under fhe provisions of Clause 18 (2) of tlie Chhattisgarh PubUc Distribution System (Conti'ol) Order, 2004. The CQUector, BUaspur, by ttie mipugned order dated 6.7.2009 (Anuexure P/8), passed ia Appeal Case No. 45/2008-09, set-aside the order dated 21.4.2009, passed by the Sub Divisional OSicer (Revenue). Shri Parag Kotecha, learaed coiinsel appearmg for tiie petitioner subinits tliat no appeal under Clause 18 (2) of the Chhattisgarh PubUc Distdbution Systeni (Conti'ol) Order, 2004 is provided, as it is a case of suspension of tlie fau: price shop, allotted to the respondent No.4/aiid as such, the provisions ofClause 18 (2) of the Chhattisgai'h Public Distaibution System (Confarol) Order, 2004 are not appUcable. Thus, flie petitioner lias no alteraative reraedy. Leanied cbunsel furtiier subniits that tilie inipugned order was passed wittiout affordnig aa opportunity of heariiig to fhe petitioner/even tlie petitioner was not isiipleaded as a party respondeut. Be that as it may, it is clear froni the provisions of Clause 16 an.d 18 of fhe Chhattisgarh Public Distributiou System (Control) Order, 2004 that a party, beiiig aggrieved by aay steps, which leads to caaceUation of a fair price shop, may prefer an appeal to fhe State Goveranient against tlie order passed by fhe Collector. In fact, it is a case of caiicellatiou of aUotment of the fair price shop ia favour of the respondent No.4, as durmg the period of suspension the respondent No.4 filed aa explaaation aad the Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue), beiilg dissatisfied wifh th.e explaaation of ftie respondent No.4, decided not to contmue allotment of the fair price shop to fhe respondent No.4 but allotted fhe same to fhe petitioner.

5. Ou peinsal of fhe provisions of Clause 16 aiid 18 of tfie Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004, it is clear tiiat fhe petitioner may file aa appeal to the State Goveniment under the provisious of Clause 18 (2) of fhe Chhattisgarh PubHc Distdbution Systera (Coiitrol) Order, 2004 agaiast tih.e impugned order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P/8).

6. Haviag perused the relevaat provisions oflaw, as afore-stated, it is obvious that aii altemative efiective statutory reiiiedy is available to the petitioner. It is weU settled that normally the High Court should not iaterfere tftJiere is 011 adequate, statutoiy, efficacious alteniative reinedy is provided by fiie statute, paity niust exhaust the statutor}^ remedy before resorfcmg to writ jurisdiction.

7. A Constitution Bench of the HonT^le Suprerae Court ia K. S. Rashid and Soii v. lacome Ta^ In^esti^itioa CommisstoB aad Others1, obsei've.d fhat "the reniedy provided for ia Article 226 of ttie Constitution is a discretionar)^ reinedy and fhe High Court has always fhe discretiou t.o refuse to graat any writ tf it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can. have aii adequate or suitable reUef elsewhere/' The said decision has been refeiTed aiid followed subsequeutly in. a catena ofdecisions that ifa reUef caiinot be granted by fhe appellate authority, tlie writ jurisdiction niay be invoked. In tlie present set of facts, aU tlie IA1R 1954 SC 207 4 relief sought for by tiie petitioner caa be graated by tlie civil Court.

8. On the question of availabitity of alteraative reniedy, Supreme Court m State of H.P. aaid others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cemesit and asaother2, observed as under: It 1976, fhe power "17. We shall first deal wifh tlie plea regardmg alteniative reniedy as raised by tiie appeUaat State. Except for a period when Article 226 was aiaended by the Constifution (Forty- second AniendBient) Act, relatnig to altemative reiiiedy has been considered to be a nile of setf- imposed Imiitation. is essentially a rule of policy, convenience aad discretion aiid never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alteraative reniedy, jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At tlie same time, it caanot be lost sight of fhat though fhe inatter relatiiig to aa alteniative remedy has nothiag to do with the jurisdiction of fhe case, normally the High Court should not iaterfere tfthere is ao. adequate efficacious alternative reniedy, If somLebody approaches fhe High Court wifhout avaiting the alteniative reinedy provided tlie High Court should ensure that he lias raade out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to iavoke the extraordiaar}r jnrisdiction. is withui 9, Further, applymg the said ratio ia U.P. State Spiaaiaig Co< Ltd. vs. R.S.Pasidey and aaother3, fhe Court observed as under: "21. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigain. S, Karmachari Saiigh, it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcenient of a right or obUgation under ttie statute aiid specific reniedy is, therefore, provided under fhe High Court should not deviate from flie tlie statute, general view aiid iaterfere uuder Article 226 except when a veiy strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who iasists upon such remedy caii avail of the process as provided under the statute, To the same efifect are fhe decisions m Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shaataram Wadke, Rajasflian SRTC v. Kdshna Kaiit, Chaadrakant Tukaram Nikani v. Municipal Corpn. of Alimedabad aad ia Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldrcd." 2 3