SEEMA CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent-authorities have failed to understand the purport of the order wherein, before passing the impugned orders dated 23. 05. 2008 (Annexure P/1), principles of natural justice was required to be complied with. It is further contended that show cause notice was issued on one ground and the impugned orders dated 23. 05. 2008 (Annexure p/1) were passed on different ground. No show-cause-notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners in respect of the ground, which was taken for passing the impugned order.

(2.) BE that as it may, since it involves question of facts which can be considered only by the appellate authority, thus, this case is not one of the case wherein departure from normal rule of resorting to statutory forum, be allowed.

(3.) ON the question of availability of alternative remedy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of H. P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another1, observed as under: "17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 21. In G. Veerappa Pilla v. Raman and Raman ltd. ; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. ; Ramendra kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, Shivgonda anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra; c. A. Abraham v. ITO, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd v. State of Orissa; H. B. Gandhi v. Gopi nath and Sons; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, Sheela Devi v. Jaspal singh and Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan, this Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. "