Smt. Raj Shree Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Raj Shree Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions: the petitioner may pursue her defence before the authority concerned through a fresh representation, and the authority is to take an appropriate decision thereon preferably within sixty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saja (respondent No.4) has the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The defence taken by the petitioner in the present petition may be raised before the authority concerned by filing a fresh representation.

Key takeaways

The concerned authority is directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation so made by the petitioner preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C) No. 1562 of 2024), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; single-judge order by Hon'ble Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., dated 04.04.2024. Petitioner Smt. Raj Shree challenged recovery notices issued by respondent No.4, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saja (District Bemetara): a notice dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) directing deposit of Rs.4,79,120/- within three days, and a further notice dated 27.02.2024 threatening action according to the provisions of Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Petitioner's counsel submitted that she was not officiating as Sarpanch during the relevant period and that the CEO had no authority to initiate proceedings under Section 40; State counsel submitted that after issuance of the notice the petitioner had given an undertaking to refund the amount. The Court adjudicated neither the authority question nor the liability question; it disposed of the petition, holding that the defence taken by the petitioner may be raised before the authority concerned by filing a fresh representation, and directing the authority to take an appropriate decision on that representation preferably within sixty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 1562 of 2024

Smt. Raj Shree, age 33 years W/o Shri Kuldeep Singh Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Keshtara Janpad Panchayat Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

The Collector Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.)

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)

		---- Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate
For Respondents/State	:	Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

04.04.2024

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a notice dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) has been issued by respondent No.4/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,79,120/- within three days. He would further submit that the petitioner was not officiating as Sarpanch during the relevant period. He would also submit that again vide notice dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner has been threatened by the authority for taking action according to the provisions of Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. He would contend that the Chief Executive

2

Officer/respondent No.4 has no authority to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that after issuance of the notice, the petitioner has given an undertaking to refund the amount.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

From a perusal of the documents, it appears that certain notices were issued to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.4,79,120/- and a reply was filed. The defence taken by the petitioner in the present petition may be raised before the authority concerned by filing a fresh representation. The concerned authority is directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation so made by the petitioner preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition stands disposed of .

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti