A party must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, and claims of natural justice violations must be substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the suspension order dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent.

ii) Restrain the Respondent from taking any further action against Smt. Manjusha Narwal, the Gram Panchayat Pradhan of GP Neri, based on the same set of facts and allegations.”

2. Annexure P-1, dated 16.10.2023, is the order of suspension passed by the Statutory Authority in exercise of powervested in it under Section 145 (1) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read alongwith Rule 142(1) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997.

3. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner has not invoked the statutory remedies available in law against the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is for the reason that in this case the Authority has violated the principles of natural justice while passing order dated 16.10.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order being a non-speaking order, also gives right to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the order impugned.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having carefully perused the impugned order as well as other pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable, for the reason that when statutory remedies were available to the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have had rushed to the High Court without exhausting the remedies provided under Sections 147 and 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order was passed by violating the principles of natural justice, therefore, the petitioner has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is totally misconceived. In terms of Annexure P-2, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.08.2023, to which the reply was filed by her and this resulted in the issuance of the impugned order. That being the case, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed by the Authority by violating the principles of natural justice. Due opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put forth her case and the Show Cause Notice was responded to by the petitioner and in these circumstances, she cannot make out the grievance that she was condemned unheard.

6. This Court is not observing whether Annexure P-1 is good or bad in law. In case, according to the petitioner there was some irregularity or illegality in the said order, she could have pointed out the same to the Authorities, envisaged in Sections 147 and 148 of the Panchayati Raj Act, by invoking the appellate jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction. But, the petitioner cannot rush to the High Court against the order impugned.

7. Similarly, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is a non-speaking order, also does not gives a licence to the petitioner to evade the statutory remedies.

8. It is well settled law that a party can approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if such a party has alternative remedy, if it can satisfy the Court that the impugned order has been passed by violating the principles of natural justice, the order has been passed by the Authority without any jurisdictoon or where the party is assailing the vires of a statute or statutory rules. None of these conditions are fulfilled in this case.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of H.P. and others Versus Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And another, AIR 2005, Supreme Court 3936, has been pleased to reiterate the circumstances in which a party can approach the Court directly. Relevant part of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of