TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (1) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Mr. S. C. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervener (Shri Manai Basumatari) has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner ought not to be granted any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction as the petitioner has come to the court by skipping over his statutory remedy provided for in Section 138, Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, "the Panchayati Act" for short, as there is alternative and efficacious remedy provided for in Section 138 of the Panchayati Act for getting full, adequate and efficacious relief from the authority constituted to hear matters under the said section. 3. Counsel submits that at all relevant time when the impugned order was made the provision of Article 226(3) read as: "No petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same is not "efficacious". The learned counsel submits that notwithstanding availability of an alternative remedy the petitioner is entitled to petition under Article 226 and get relief thereunder. The relevant provision of Section 138(2) of "the Panchayat Act" reads as under: "138 (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing Sub-section (1), the State Government may at any time call for the records in any manner from a Gaon Panchayat or Mohkuma Parishad and give such order as may be deemed necessary after examination of such records. The order of the State Government, in this regard shall be final." 5. On perusal of the entire scheme of the Panchayat Act it appears clear that "Settling Authorities" and ''Confirming A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of the Division Bench has been confirmed in Civil Rule 92 of 1978, Lachhi Ram Choudhury v. Chief Executive Councillor, Kokrajhar Mahkuma Parishad decided on 9-11-78. 6. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that any person aggrieved by an order of settlement of a bazar or hat passed by Executive Committee of Mahkuma Parishad has a statutory right to file an application for revision against the impugned order. 7. It is indubitable that the petitioner has had the remedy available but he has come to this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction skipping over the statutory remedy. Reason shown in the petition as to why the remedy was not availed of is by way of a bad statement in paragraph 14 reads: "14. That there is no othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case in which the petitioner can get adequate relief by an ordinary action at law. It does not appear that the relief under Section 138(2) cannot be availed by the petitioner if he presents his application under Section 138(2) before the authorities now. There is no limitation prescribed for presenting an application under Section 138(2) of the Panchayat Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has had an alternative adequate and more efficacious remedy provided under Section 138 than what the petitioner might have been entitled to get under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the fact that there is an alternative, adequate and efficacious remedy and the said remedy is still available to t....