Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3638 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ramwati Sahu W/o Shri Bhagirathi Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Baitari, Tahsil - Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Ram Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Sewak Ram Nayak Aged About 51 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Baitari, Tahsil - Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Mahasamund Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Ombudsman (Lokpal) Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna Zila Panchayat Premises, Zila Panchyat, Room No. 28, Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.15 16:58:10 +0530 For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs:- “a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the Court of Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Saraipali, District-Mahasamund for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. b. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 21.04.2025(Annexure P-1) passed by SDO Revenue Saraipali, District-Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). 2 c.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the SDO (Revenue) Saraipali to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the availability of the appellate authority. d. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. “ 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned SDO (Revenue), Saraipali is patently arbitrary, illegal, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned SDO has failed to consider the direction issued by this court in WPC no. 6476/2024 vide order dated 13.01.2025 wherein the Court has specifically directed the petitioners to apprise the SDO about the pendency of the appeal before the State Level Appellate Authority and further directed to take a reasoned decision thereupon.He submits that the proceedings initiated under Section 92of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 are premature and arbitrary in light of the pending appellate authority, and the continuation of recovery would amount to irreparable harm and miscarriage of justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he admits the fact that an award was passed by Ombudsman on 11.10.2022 wherein it was directed to recover an amount of Rs. 6,96,000/- and in compliance of the said award SDO has proceeded under Section 92 of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 for recovery of the said amount. He also admits that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 has not been constituted. Therefore, he submits that the direction shall be given to the concerned authority to comply the order of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On bare perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact which is not disputable is that on 11.10.2022 an award was passed by Ombudsman wherein it was clearly mentioned that on being found negligent towards the duty and because of not maintaining transparency and proper norms in the implementation of the MNREGA scheme, petitioner no. 1 along with three other employment assistants were 3 jointly convicted and punished with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. And after examining every fact and circumstance of the case, recovery of Rs. 6,96,000/- was ordered to be initiated and was directed to deposit the same in the MNREGA Account of District Panchayat, Saraipali. Thereafter based upon the direction, a recovery proceeding was initiated under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 6. It it also worth mentioning that the petitioners filed a petition before this Court and vide order dated 13.01.2025, in WPC No. 6476 of 2024, the Court found that the proceedings have been drawn by the SDO after issuance of notice to the petitioners and the petitioners are appearing before the SDO, but no reply has been filed by them. Therefore, the
Decision
Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioners to apprise the SDO(Revenue) about the pendency of the appeal filed by them before the Appellate Tribunal State Level Ombudsman, Raipur, by filing the reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The SDO (Revenue) was also directed to take decision on the reply to be filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, as per the direction of this Court on 21.04.2025 and in compliance submitted a detailed reply explaining the factual situation and requested that the recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance until the appeal is heard and decided. However, an order was passed by the learned SDO (Revenue) in which the order of carrying out the recovery was passed. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the SDO has failed to even refer to consider the said reply in a just and judicious manner and because of such insistence on recovery in the absence of an opportunity the petitioner’s fundamental right to access justice and fair hearing under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Therefore, this Court directs that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the SDO (Revenue) under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 shall be kept in abeyance until the Appellate Authority under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act,2005 will be constituted. 8. However, the petitioners on the other hand is also directed that they will 4 file an appeal after the said constitution of the Appellate Authority under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act,2005. 9. With the aforesaid direction(s), the instant petition stands disposed of. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE