Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....C.W.P.No.11823 of 2014 ....Date of decision:5.6.2014 Prem Singh ...Petitioner v.
Superintending Canal Officer and others ...Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner.....Inderjit Singh, J.
Prem Singh-petitioner has filed this civil writ petition against the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle, the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar Canal Division, The Deputy Collector, Abohar Canal Division and Jagroop Singh (respondents No.1 to 4 respectively) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 29.5.2014 (Annexure-P.4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.2 has illegally and arbitrarily granted the stay only for a period of one month and thereby has caused grave injustice to the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing.
He has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent No.2 to decide the stay Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.11823 of 2014 [2].application/appeal titled as Prem Singh v.
Jagroop Singh, which is pending adjudication before him for 2.7.2014 and till date the same has not been heard even once and the authorities below are trying to implement the order under challenge.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he has already filed the appeal against the order of Deputy Collector of Abohar, which is pending for consideration on stay order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further admitted at the time of arguments that revision petition was also filed before the revisional authority, which is also pending.
At the time of arguments, at one stage, he stated that revision petition has been filed and on the other time he stated that representation has been filed before the revisional authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that against the order, an appeal can be filed and against the order of appeal, the remedy by way of revision is also available.
When the remedies have been prescribed under the Act for filing appeal or revision and the petitioner is availing those remedies, therefore, the question of quashing the impugned order does not arise.
As per the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner proceedings are pending before the Deputy Collector, Abohar Canal Division (respondent No.3).the appeal is pending before respondent No.2-Divisional Canal Officer and he also admits that some revision/representation against the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.11823 of 2014 [3].order of the appellate authority is also pending before the respondent No.1 and now during the pendency of these proceedings i.e.appeal and revision etc., this petition has been filed before this Court.
As the petitioner is availing the alternative remedies and alternatives remedies are available under the statute, therefore, I do not find any ground in this petition and the same is dismissed.
June 5, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.06.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh