DHRUVA CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.P.Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Collector, Basti, while exercising the power under Sub -Section 2 of Section 27 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which he has required the Pradhan to deposit 1/3rd of the total amount of surcharge Rs.4,03,074/ - and 1/2 of the total amount Rs. 18,900/ - misused from the Gram Nidhi (fund).

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that the impugned order is appealable as against the order passed by the District Magistrate under Sub -Section 2 of Section 27, appeal lie to the State government within thirty days from the date of such order and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the availability of the alternative remedy under Sub -Section 3 of Section 27 of the Act is not disputed but here it is a case where the order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, therefore in view of the exception carved out by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1, the writ petition should be entertained and the petition should not be thrown on the ground of alternative remedy.