Writ Petition is Inadmissible Where Efficacious Alternate Statutory Remedy of Revision Remains Unexhausted

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Collector regarding the appointment of an Anganwadi worker.

State guidelines stipulate that such appointments are governed by the appeal and revision provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 instead of filing a revision before the Commissioner, arguing that the Collector considered grounds outside the advertisement and failed to consider written submissions.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an efficacious alternate statutory remedy (revision) is available.

The court applied the principle of "alternate efficacious remedy," which generally bars writ jurisdiction unless specific exceptions are met.

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) and Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited (2021) establish four exceptions to the bar: (i) enforcement of fundamental rights, (ii) violation of principles of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, or (iv) challenge to the vires of a statute.

The matter is further governed by Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s grievances—namely that the Collector relied on extra-advertisement grounds or ignored written submissions—do not fall within the four exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the Petitioner was indeed heard by the authority, and there was no claim that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to pass the order.

Since the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a breach of fundamental rights or a jurisdictional error that would justify bypassing the statutory machinery, the Court held that the Petitioner must exhaust the remedy of revision before the Commissioner as provided under the Panchayat Raj Rules.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to avail the remedy of appeal or revision under the law; the Registry was directed to return the certified copies of documents to the Petitioner after retaining photocopies.