MANITA MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 dtd. 5/2/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 673 of 2024 (Smt. Manita Mandavi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and 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 and 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) and (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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ravi Yashwant Bhori vs. District Collector Raigad and 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 and 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.