1 2026:CGHC:18547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1844 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sarojani Kishan W/o Bhagwat Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pithampur, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - Kumar Yadav S/o Siyaram Yadav, Aged About 38 Years Working As Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pithampur, R/o Village Pithampur, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) And Competent Authority Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Rupanjali Udasi, Working As Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pithampur, Block Nawagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5 - Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.24 12:28:55 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the order dated 08/04/2026 passed by the Collector Janjgir Champa Annexure P-1. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the present petition is not maintainable because there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under the C.G. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and according to the said provisions, the petitioner has to approach the Director (Panchayat), Government of Chhattisgarh. 3. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 4. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 5. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be 3 invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the order impugned has been passed by the Collector Janjgir Champa in a proceedings under Section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the concerned authority having jurisdiction over the matter. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Bhilwar