High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3614/2015dismissed

Manorama Mishra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-10-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3614 of 2015 • Manorama Mishra D/o Shatrughan Mishra, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Kaushalpur, Post Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Zila Panchayat, Surguja Through Chief Executive OfÏcer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

4. Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat Ramanujganj Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Ku. Pooja Sinha, D/o. Brijbihari Sinha, Aged About 21 Years R/o. Near Vishrampur Central Hospital, At Present Post Shiksha Karmi Grade - I I I, Primary School Chitkahipara, Village Kot, Tahsil Ramanujganj Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocates For Respondent /State Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 7/10/2015 Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the Collector, Surajpur, in Panchayat Appeal No.26/B-121/2011-12, which in

turn was preferred against the order passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujnagar.

(3) Under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993 read with Chhatisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring a revision before the revisional authority.

(4) In the matter of Union of India and others vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another (2015) 6 SCC 773, the Supreme Court has held that in a case where statutory alternative remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain writ petition. (5) For the foregoing, the writ petition is hereby dismissed, as not maintainable.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna