Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2025:CGHC:2841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2432 of 2014 1. Jagdish Lakda S/o Late Baldhani Aged About 31 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, P.S. And Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 2. Uttam Samdar S/o Ramphal Samdar Aged About 44 Years Working As Secretary, Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur-Ramanujganj, P.S. and Tahsil Balrampur, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3. Krishna Bhagwan S/o Shri Hari Aged About 38 Years Working As Teacher, R/o Cherkoma, P.S. And Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Naim Khan S/o Suleman Khan Aged About 55 Years Working As Teacher, R/o Village Jarhadih, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5. N.K. Wasnik S/o B.D. Wasnik Aged About 53 Years Working As Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Balrampur, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Cum District Coordinator Balrampur -Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3. The Lokapal, MGNREGA, Zila Panchayat, Surguja, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 5. Shishu Rai, R/o Village Krishna Nagar, Post Ganesh Mod, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 6. Susen R/o Village Krishna Nagar, Post Ganesh Mod, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 2 For Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 For Respondent No. 5 : : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate None though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.07.12 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the letter dated 30.10.14 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of impugned award dated 25.07.12. 10.3 To award the cost and expenses of this petition. 10.4 To issue any other writ or directions or orders in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents upon these facts and in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 1 was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur and petitioner No. 2 was the Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat at the relevant time in the year 2011-2012. He would further submit that petitioners No. 3 and 4 were Government Teachers, whereas petitioner No. 5 was the Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Balrampur. He would submit that a complaint was made by Shishuroy, Susen Mandal and other villagers of the Village Krishna Nagar to the effect that the 3 Sarpanch and Secretary failed to complete the construction of the road under the MGNREGA Scheme. He would contend that cognizance was taken by the Ombudsman, Jija Panchayat Sarguja and the notices were issued to the Sarpanch and Secretary. He would further contend that the Ombudsman passed an order on 25.07.2012 wherein it was found that the Sarpanch and Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat failed to complete the construction of the road and caused a loss to the Panchayat to the tune of Rs.15,67,732/- and petitioners No. 1 and 2 were granted sufficient time to complete the construction of road failing which a direction was issued to register F.I.R. Mr. C.J.K. Rao would further argue that though petitioners No. 3 to 5 were not a party to that complaint and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, even though the Ombudsman subsequently passed the order for registration of F.I.R. against them vide order dated 30.10.2014. He would contend that the order for registration of F.I.R. against petitioners No. 3 to 5 is erroneous and arbitrary, therefore, it may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would oppose. They would submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioners No. 1 and 2. They would contend that petitioners No. 1 and 2 while holding the office of the Sarpanch and Secretary failed to complete the construction of the road in Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.15,67,732/- to the concerned Gram Panchayat. They would fairly concede the fact that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to petitioners No. 3 to 5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were holding the office of Sarpanch 4 and Secretary at the relevant time of Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar and they failed to complete the construction of the road despite sufficient time granted by the Ombudsman. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were afforded opportunity of hearing also, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, with regard to petitioners No. 1 and 2 no case is made out for interference. Before taking action against petitioners No. 1 and 2 pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2012 or 30.10.2014, the authority concerned shall verify the fact as to whether the construction of the road has been completed or not. Petitioners No. 3 to 5 were not party to the complaint and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the order impugned with regard to registration of F.I.R., therefore, the order passed against petitioners No. 3 to 5 for registration of F.I.R. or any other action, is liable to be quashed. The orders dated 25.07.2012 and 30.10.2014 pertaining to petitioners No. 3 to 5 are hereby quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti