KAILASH DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated October 28, 1999 (Annexures P4 and P5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and the letter Annexure P6 dated October 28, 1999 sent by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Karnal to the petitioner for handing over of the charge of the office of Up-Sarpanch.

(2.) Perusal of the record show that after issuing show cause notice to her for initiation of action under Sections 51(1)(b), 51(2) and 51(3) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal passed the impugned orders for holding a regular enquiry and for her suspension from the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) During the course of hearing, we asked Shri S.P. Singh, .as to why his client has not availed the alternative remedy by filing appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act. Learned counsel conceded that the petitioner can avail remedy of appeal, but at the same time he made efforts to convenience us that the writ petition should be entertained by arguing that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In our opinion, the submission of learned counsel does not merit acceptance. The Act is a Code unto itself and as the remedy of appeal is provided under the Act against the order of removal, we do not find any valid reason to deviate from the well established principle that the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner who can avail other alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance. In our view, the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 51(5) is an effective alternative remedy because the appellate authority can nullify the impugned orders on all those grounds which the petitioner has raised before this Court. Therefore, we do not find any justification to entertain the petition.