1 2026:CGHC:26147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 723 of 2023 1 - Ratan Lal Vishwakarma, S/o Jahar Singh, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Bigarbharri, Police Station - Jangle, Singhanpuri, Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.). 2 - Mahesh, S/o Aliyar Vishwakarma, Aged About 45 Years Caste - Lohar, R/o Village - Bigarbharri, Police Station - Jangle, Singhanpuri, Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.). 3 - Naresh, S/o Aliyar Vishwakarma, Aged About 50 Years Caste - Lohar, R/o Village - Bigarbharri, Police Station - Jangle, Singhanpuri, Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - The Forest Range Officer Sahaspur Lohara, Forest Block Sonjhari, Tahsil - Lohara,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Field Assistant, Sahaspur Lohara, Forest Block Sonjhari, Tahsil - Lohara,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sarpanch, Village Sonjhari, Forest Block Sonjhari, Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil - Lohara,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the petitioners and construction of Pond in village Panchayat Sonjhari, Police Station Pandariya, Tahsil Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners directing the 3 respondents to not evict the petitioners from their land which they are in possession since long. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, and quash the notice (P/1) dated 07.07.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 4. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, and direct the authority to enquire the matter and punish the culprit who is misusing the public money. 10.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that, from the pleadings contained in the writ petition itself, it is apparent that the petitioner was required to avail the statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions of law by filing an appropriate application before the competent authority. However, without resorting to such statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have first approached the competent authority and ventilated his grievance in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the applicable law. Only after an adverse order had been passed by the competent authority, 4 and after exhausting the statutory remedies available, could the petitioner have approached this Court, if so advised. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately bypassed the efficacious alternative statutory remedy and has directly approached this Court seeking its indulgence. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appropriate application under the relevant acts and rules before the concerned authorities. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat