1 2025:CGHC:55304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5944 of 2025 1 - Avinash Peswani S/o Shri Suresh Peswani Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Transporter R/o- Shop No.A-220, Narayan Plaza, Link Road Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. 7489999940 --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Economic And Statistice Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Registrar Birth And Death Registration, Directorate Of Economic And Statistics Indrawati Bhawan (Hod Building) Ground Floor, Block- No.2, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Registrar Birth And Death, New Composite Building 2nd Floor, Collectorate Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Registrar Birth And Death Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Totaram Peswani S/o Gokhumal @ Gelamal Aged About 80 Years R/o Sindhi Colony Jarhabhata Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9425549203 6 - Suresh Kumar Bajpayee S/o Late Shiv Ganesh Bajpayee Aged About 66 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 10:59:09 +0530 2 Years R/o House No-H/8, Narmada Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo No. 7974126828 --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/11/2025 1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.4 raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy of appeal before respondent No.2 to challenge the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 25 A (1) (ii) of the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to availability of remedy of appeal against the order impugned passed by respondent No.3, however, writ petition is filed on the ground that petitioner has not been granted proper opportunity of hearing and the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that Registrar at the time of considering the appeal filed by respondents No.5 has also accepted the appeal submitted by respondent No.6 along with other applications like applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for producing additional documents along with appeal and leave to appeal. Though the notice of appeal submitted by 3 respondent No.5 and copy of memo of appeal has been provided to him, however, the memo of appeal along with other applications have not been supplied to petitioner. Respondent No.3 has considered both the appeals together and passed the order, therefore, petitioner could not get an opportunity to counter the application submitted along with an appeal by respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the subject matter of the appeal is to the order passed by respondent No.4 and order passed by respondent No.4 is put to challenge by respondent No.5 herein on the grounds as mentioned therein. Petitioner was noticed and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing on the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and considered by respondent No.3 or the order passed by the respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned State counsel also supported the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 and referred to the part of proceedings as enclosed along with the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 6. There is no dispute that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India can hear the case even if the petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy of appeal or revision under the statute. However, jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances as carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, in case of Harbans Lal Sahnia & Anr Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & ors, 4 reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 and in case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others vs. Commercial Steel Limited reported in [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 884.. 7. From the submission made by respective parties and the proceedings of the appellate authority/respondent No.3 placed before this Court as Annexure P-1, it is appearing that petitioner was issued notice on the appeal submitted by respondent No.5, he was heard on the ground as mentioned in the memo of appeal and only thereafter, the order impugned is passed. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the fact that petitioner was heard before passing the order impugned, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In above facts of the case submission of counsel for petitioner that order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of second appeal as provided under Section 25 A (1) (ii) of the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available to him. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram