Disposed

Hemlal Sahu (Present Sarpanch) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2022WPC/3043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition by declining to exercise its jurisdiction to review a show cause notice issued under the Chhattisgamh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The court permitted the petitioner to approach the authority and raise objections regarding the applicability of the Act and its jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty to approach authority No.2 to reply to show cause notice and raise objections on jurisdiction.

Hemlal Sahu (Present Sarpanch) Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 3043 of 2022

¶5

1. Hemlal Sahu (Present Sarpanch) S/o Rajaram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Smt. Ravikanta Sahu (Former Sarpanch) W/o Shri Hemlal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3. Ku. Ishwari Kosre (Rojgar Sahayika) D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. Dronacharya Tondan (Mate) S/o Shri Sadan Tondon Kosre R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5. Vasudev Kosre (Mate) S/o Shri Punitram Kosre R/o Kotgaon, TehsilKurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6. Bhopendra Dhruw (Mate) S/o Shri Gendlal Dhruw R/o Kotgaon, TehsilKurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

7. Kesri Sahu (Secretary) W/o Hukum Sahu R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Chatoud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

8. Leelaram Banjare S/o Shivlal Banjare R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

9. Dayaram Sahu S/o Shri Punitram Sahu R/o Kotgaon, Tehsil- Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---Respondents

¶19

For Petitioners : Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For State : Shri P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents 8&9 : Shri Subhoshit Singh, Advocate.

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶21

12.07.2022

¶22

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, dated 07.06.2022, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

2. The two petitioners in the instant writ petition are the present and the previous Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kotgaon, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari. On the ground of certain irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioners, a show cause notice under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, the Adhiniyam, 1993) was issued on 12.11.2020 to the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1

¶24

-2-

¶25

immediately challenged the same before the District Collector on the ground of the non applicability of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993. According to the petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances if at all if proceedings have to be initiated for the alleged irregularities, it would have to be a proceedings drawn under the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short, the Act of 2005) and not under the Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioner was able to get an interim protection so far as the operation of the show cause notice. The Collector finally vide order dated 22.07.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed the issuance of show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Raipur Division which too now stands rejected vide order dated 07.06.2022 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶26

3. The petitioner has been strongly harping on the fact that the notice or the proceedings drawn under the Adhiniyam, 1993 would not be applicable. It would be the Act, 2005 which would be applicable. However, the said core issue has not been discussed or decided either by the District Collector or by the Commissioner through the impugned order and the said issue still is left open.

¶27

4. At this juncture the counsel for the State submits that ultimately it is only a show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner and which he has been challenging before various forums during all these period and continues to remain in office without the show cause proceeding progressing any further. Therefore it would not be justified for this court at this juncture to invoke the writ jurisdiction or subject the show cause notice to judicial review. Rather, the petitioner should be permitted to reply to the show cause and he may also be given the liberty to raise the objections so far as jurisdiction and applicability of the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1993,

¶28

-3-

¶29

and let the authority who has initiated the show cause proceedings, decide the same on its own merits and then if required, proceed further with the matter.

¶30

5. The submissions made by the State counsel seems to be convincing.

¶31

6. Given the said facts, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach before the respondent No.2 and submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice and in reply the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question of jurisdiction and applicability of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Upon such ground being raised, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the said objection first and only, if required, should thereafter proceed further with the show cause proceedings in accordance with law.

¶32

7. With the aforesaid liberty and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶34

inder

Hemlal Sahu (Present Sarpanch) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlal Sahu (Present Sarpanch) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Prabhat Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Prasad Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Singh Vs Regional Assistant, Branch Office Gruh Finance Limited

M/s Vijeta Construction Company Vs M/s Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Pegasus)

Vijaynath Bais Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bishat Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh