The court reaffirmed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy, such as under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is available. This judgment follows and applies established Supreme Court precedents, strengthening the bar on writ maintainability in such cases. It is binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for similar disputes involving cooperative society employees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5681/2025 of VIRENDRA KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010460752025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law / Cooperative societies |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 when efficacious statutory remedies exist under the Cooperative Societies Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held, following Supreme Court precedent, that a writ under Article 226 should not ordinarily be entertained when there exists an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy, such as Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner, being an employee of a cooperative society, has a statutory forum to resolve disputes, and the existence of such remedy ousts the maintainability of a writ petition except in exceptional circumstances. The court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to pursue the alternate remedy. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies; Article 226 precedent from Supreme Court decisions |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought to quash the recruitment notice for Data Entry Operator and prayed for regularization in service, claiming long continuous working and having crossed age limit. The employer was a cooperative society. Respondent cited alternative remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petition was dismissed on ground of availability of statutory remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; parties to the case |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in cooperative society employment disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the bar on writ maintainability where a specific statutory remedy exists for cooperative society employees under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
- Dismissal of writ petition despite petitioner’s claim of sympathetic/humanitarian considerations due to age and long service.
- Lawyers should ensure exhaustion of alternative remedies before approaching High Court under Article 226 in similar contexts.
- The court granted liberty to approach the Registrar, reaffirming the statutory mechanism as first recourse.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the submissions that the petitioner, a daily wage Data Entry Operator, was seeking quashing of recruitment notices and his own regularization.
- The respondent side argued alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for cooperative society employment disputes.
- The court cited and relied upon Supreme Court judgments, including State of H.P. & Others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another (2005) 6 SCC 499 and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (2020) 19 SCC 172, both reiterating that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where an adequate statutory forum is available and unexhausted.
- The High Court concluded that no exceptional circumstance warranted departure from this settled principle, and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed continuous, complaint-free service as Data Entry Operator (since 2012) on daily wage basis.
- Sought quashing of recruitment notices for the position and direction for regularization due to crossing age limit.
- Cited repeated representations for regularization on sanctioned post.
Respondent
- Asserted that the petitioner, as an employee of a cooperative society, has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for resolving employment disputes.
- Argued against maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 on ground of available statutory forum.
Factual Background
The petitioner was working as a Data Entry Operator since 2012 on a daily wage basis in a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. He alleged that he was functioning against a vacant and sanctioned post and had made several representations seeking regularization, particularly after surpassing the prescribed maximum age under state service rules. On issuance of recruitment notices intending to fill the post through outsourcing, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the notices and direct regularization. The respondent government objected, highlighting the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution: Provides for writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
- Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Provides a statutory remedy to cooperative society employees for dispute resolution.
- The court interpreted these to hold that availability of an efficacious remedy under Section 55(2) bars maintainability of writ under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances.
- Cited Supreme Court decisions reinforced a strict application of this principle.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or formally separate concurring opinion; both judges concurred in the outcome and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
None indicated; followed settled procedure for maintainability and alternative remedy principles.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and applies established Supreme Court precedent on writ maintainability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.