Facts
The three petitioners, residents of Village Bigarbharri, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent their eviction from land they claimed to possess for a long duration
Source reference: p. 2-3They specifically challenged a notice dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Field Assistant (Respondent No. 4) and sought an inquiry into the alleged misuse of public funds regarding the construction of a pond in Village Panchayat Sonjhari
Source reference: p. 3During the hearing, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioners bypassed statutory remedies available under relevant forest and land laws
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioners
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The Court applied the doctrine of "Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies," a self-imposed restriction on the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p. 3-4This principle dictates that when a statute provides a specific machinery or an effective and efficacious remedy for redressal of grievances, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition unless the petitioner has exhausted those statutory channels
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court considered the State’s contention that the petitioners were required to file an appropriate application before the competent statutory authority rather than approaching the High Court directly
Source reference: p. 3The State argued that the petitioners must first ventilate their grievances through the prescribed legal procedure and can only seek judicial review after an adverse order is passed by the competent authority
Source reference: p. 3-4Upon the State raising this preliminary objection regarding maintainability and the availability of a statutory forum, the counsel for the petitioners conceded and sought permission to withdraw the petition to pursue the correct legal avenue
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the eviction or the notice. It held that the petition was to be dismissed as withdrawn following the petitioners' request for liberty to approach the appropriate authorities
The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate applications under the relevant acts and rules before the concerned authorities [p. 4]. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
RATAN LAL VISHWAKARMA,vsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in