Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed ('disposed of'); notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) quashed; matter remanded to the SDO(R), Baikunthpur, District Korea to decide afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and after conducting due enquiry; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 4 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lakhs compensation without any enquiry, although the enquiry was still pending, was arbitrary, contrary to natural justice and liable to be set aside/quashed along with proceedings emanating from it.

Court's answer

Serving the petitioner a notice (Annexure P/1) stating that the charges levelled against him had been proved, while on the other hand the State counsel contended that the enquiry against him was still pending, is contrary to the norms of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is allowed and the notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) is quashed.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back to the SDO(R), Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.).ratio¶7
The SDO(R), Baikunthpur is directed to decide the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry against the petitioner.ratio¶7
The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 5308 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 15/10/2025 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma): The petitioner had been served a notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) by respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Rev.), Baikunthpur, District Korea, requiring him to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant/applicant without any enquiry. Learned State counsel conceded that the enquiry had not been completed and produced a further notice dated 06.10.2025 fixing the petitioner's appearance before the SDO(R) on 16.10.2025. Finding that the petitioner had been served with a notice stating the charges were 'proved' while the enquiry was admittedly still pending - conduct 'against norms of natural justice' - the Court allowed the petition, quashed the notice dated 13.08.2025, and remanded the matter to the SDO(R), Baikunthpur to decide it after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing and after conducting due enquiry, expressly reserving any expression of opinion on the merits.

1

2025:CGHC:51309

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 5308 of 2025

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Dalsai Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill.- Kadam Bhara, P.O. Tamdand, Dist. Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Panchayat, Directorate Of Panchayat, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)

3 - Jila Panchayat Korea, Through Its Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)

4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Rev.) Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)

5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.)

6 - The Forest Range Officer Forest Range, Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.)

7 - Mahesh Tiwari S/o Bholanath Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill. Podi, Tahsil-

Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

15/10/2025

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs:

“10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

2

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/s, order/s and direction/s to direct respondent authority thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 (annexure P/1) and further proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 10.3 Any other relief order or direction which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 wherein he has been served with a notice to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant/applicant without any enquiry which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State contended that enquiry has not been completed yet and during the course of argument learned State counsel presented a notice dated 06.10.2025 which has been served to the petitioner for his appearance before the concerned SDO(R) Baikunthpur, District- Korea on 16.10.2025. The document is taken on record and a copy of same is provided to the counsel for the petitioner also.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and

3

perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that the enquiry against the petitioner is still pending before the concerned SDO(R). Annexure P/1 reveals that the notice has been issued to the petitioner that the charges levelled against him has been proved. On the one hand, learned State counsel contended that the enquiry against the petitioner is pending and on the other hand the petitioner is served with a notice stating that the charges levelled against him is proved. This act of the respondent is against norms of natural justice.

Therefore, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby allowed and the notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the SDO(R), Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) and the SDO(R), Baikunthpur is directed to decide the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case.

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

Madhurima