1 - Rohit Nagesh S/o Genuram Nagesh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 / 10 2025:CGHC:2191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 64 of 2025 1 - Rohit Nagesh S/o Genuram Nagesh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Saraipani, Tahsil - Amlipadar, District Gariyaband (C.G.). --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 4 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manipur, District Gariyaband (C.G.). 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 81 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Akhaiy Bai W/o Bhimadhar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kalimati, Tahsil - Amlipadar, District - Gariyaband (C.G). ---Petitioner 2 / 10 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G). 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 4 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 96 of 2025 1 - Motilal Netam S/o Dhaniram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jaridih Tahsil Mainpur District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Goriyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 / 10 4 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur District - Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 100 of 2025 1 - Ishwar Singh Nagesh S/o Late Mangal Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Naharbiri, Tahsil- Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 101 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pramila Manjhi W/o Dhaneshwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Ghumrapadar, Tahsil- Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. ---Petitioner 4 / 10 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, C.G. --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 107 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Hadiram Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Village- Kalimati, Tahsil- Amlipadar, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 / 10 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 108 of 2025 1 - Smt. Chameli Bai W/o Rohit Nagesh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Saraipani Tahsil Amlipadar District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Gariyaband District - Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur District - Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondents alongwith 6 / 10 WPC No. 109 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vishakha W/o Ganeshram Netam Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Jangda, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband ( C.G.) 3 - The Chief Excutive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District Gariyaband ( C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband (C .G.) --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 111 of 2025 1 - Parmeshwar @ Dhaneshwar S/o Ramdas Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Ghumrapadar, Tahsil-Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) 7 / 10 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondents alongwith WPC No. 289 of 2023 1 - Ban Singh Sori S/o Adluram Sori Aged About 56 Years Ex Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kulhadighat, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisiolnal Officer (Revenue) Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 8 / 10 For Petitioners For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. Since the identical issues involved in the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of WPC No. 64/2025 are taken into consideration. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the notice dated 15/10/2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4/ Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mainpur, District Gariyaband as well as the communication/list dated 03/03/2022 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No.5/ Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District Gariyaband to the SDO (Revenue) intimating him that as per social audit conducted by the audit team, the recovery has to be made from various Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats including the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were working as Office bearers/Panchs of the Panchayats have committed irregularities during their tenure in the said Panchayats. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the list issued by the CEO, notices were issued to the petitioners by SDO for recovery of the alleged amount from them. At the time of preparation of the list of recovery of the amount, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as per the 9 / 10 list/communication (Annexure P/2) given to the SDO (Revenue) by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur an intimation has been given for recovery of amount from various Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats on the basis of the social audit conducted by the audit team where several irregularities were found when the Office beareres/Panchayats were working in the the Gram Panchayats. He further submits that after receipt of the communication by the CEO, the SDO (Revenue) has drawn a proceeding under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam”) and notices have been issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam to the petitioners as well as the other Panchs or Office bearers of the Gram Panchayats. He would argue that that there is a provision under Section 89 that before passing any order of recovery, proper opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the office bearers of the Gram Panchayats, accordingly the show cause notice has been issued under the said provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the Office bearers and to observe the principles of natural justice before passing any order in the list communicated by the CEO. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of the pleadings would show that the CEO has sent a communication to the SDO for recovery of amount from various office bearers/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, as per the social audit conducted by the audit team. The SDO, in pursuance to the 10 / 10 said communication/list provided by the CEO, has drawn proceeding under Section 89 and issued notices to the petitioners to explain how the amount as stated by the audit team as well as the CEO would not be recovered from them. 7. It appears from the notices (Annexure P/1) and the show cause notices which are under Challenge by the petitioners is only a notice as per the provision under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam and the petitioners will get opportunity of hearing to explain about the irregularities and recovery sought from them. 8. As per the statement of the learned State counsel that the proceeding under Section 89 has been drawn against the petitioners and only after receiving of the reply to the said show cause notices, the final decision has to be passed by the SDO (Revenue). 9. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of. The petitioners may file reply to the notice under Section 89 and explain the irregularities alleged against them and the SDO is directed to consider the same in accordance with the provision under Section 89 and 92 of the Adhiniyam and pass a detailed and speaking order before the recovery of the amount alleged against the petitioners. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar