RAMKISHUN SAHU Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 29-12-2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and prescribed authority, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist. Kabirdham in Rev. Case No. 5/a-89/07-08 on the ground that since this Court has directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and the case has not been considered, in accordance with law. Therefore, this petition is maintainable.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that this petition is not maintainable on the ground that under Section 91 of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the CG Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995, there is a statutory remedy of appeal against the order of Sub Divisional officer.

(3.) NORMALLY the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. (See State of H. P. and others v. Gujarat ambuja Cement and another1, U. P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R. S. Pandey and another2 and Secy. U. P. High School and intermediate Education, Allahabad and another v. H. K. Lal3, dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others4, m. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jahan Khan5 and Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development corpn. and another6.