Smt. Ramdulari Maitri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:13612

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 680 of 2020

¶7

Smt. Ramdulari Maitri W/o Late Belsingh Maitri, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village and Post Bunga, Police Station and Tahsil Pusaur, Civil and Revenue District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil and Revenue District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Sub - Divisional officer ( Revenue ) Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Shri Neelamber Sidar S/o Late Shri Muni Sidar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village and Post Bunga, Police Station and Tahsil Pusaur, Civil and Revenue District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner For State

¶14

: Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

21.03.2025

¶18

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

-2-

¶20

“10.1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to place all record connected with the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

¶21

10.2) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of Case No. 06/A-89/2016-17 (ANNEXURE P- 14) registered by the Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for recovery.

¶22

10.3) That such other relief's as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case be granted to the Petitioner. ”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the husband of

¶24

the petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bunga, Janpad Panchayat Pusaur, District Raigarh for a period of 5 years from 2005 to 2010. He would further submit that a proceeding under Section Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, the Act, 1993) was initiated against him and he was disqualified and the order of recovery of Rs. 6,26,816.19/- was passed against him. He would also submit that the appeal and revision preferred against the said order were dismissed. He would further contend that the husband of the petitioner died on 13.09.2019 and thereafter, a notice under Section 92 of the Act, 1993 was issued by the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Raigarh [for short, SDO(R)] on 07.10.2019 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. Rs. 6,26,806/-.

¶25

He would also contend that the very notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 4.14 lakh was deposited by him and that

¶26

-3-

¶27

amount has not been adjusted by the respondent authorities. He would argue that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the notice dated 07.10.2019.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the husband of the petitioner embezzled Panchayat funds, therefore, a proceeding under Section 40 of the Act, 1993 was initiated and the order was passed. He would further submit that the appeal and revision preferred against that order, were dismissed. He would also submit that as there was outstanding amount pursuant to the order passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh, a show cause notice was issued by the prescribed authority for recovery of Rs.6,26,816/- on 07.10.2019. He would contend that there was no requirement to serve a fresh show cause notice on the petitioner as the order for recovery was already passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh against the husband of the petitioner. He would also contend that if the petitioner’s husband had deposited the amount Rs. 4.14 lakh prior to his death, the same would be adjusted.

¶29

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

1. Admittedly, an order was passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh in a proceeding under Section 40 of the Act, 1993, whereby the Sarpanch/husband of the petitioner was disqualified for a period of 6 years and orders of recovery of Rs.6,26,816 - 6,26,816/- were passed against the petitioner’s husband and against the then

¶31

Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bungi. Further, the order passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh was affirmed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh and Divisional

¶32

-4-

¶33

Commissioner, Division Bilaspur and thus, the order attained finality. The SDO(R)/prescribed authority has been conferred with the power to initiate a proceeding according to the provisions of 92 of the Act, 1993 for the recovery of the amount.

¶34

1. The SDO(R), Raigarh issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to recover the

¶35

aforesaid amount. The petitioner directly approached this Court challenging therein a show cause notice. Since there was an order passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh against the husband of the petitioner/Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bungi and the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Bungi, therefore, there was no need to serve a fresh notice to the petitioner.

¶36

1. The contention made by Mr. Nayak that Rs. 4.14 lakh against the outstanding amount Rs. 6,26,806/-, was deposited by the husband of the petitioner and the same has not been adjusted. If it is found that the husband of the petitioner had deposited Rs. 4.14 lakh, the same shall be adjusted against the outstanding amount i.e. Rs. 6,26,806/- by the Competent Authority after due verification.

¶37

1. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the prescribed authority/SDO(R), along with the relevant documents and the authority concerned is directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of 30 days.

¶38

1. The notice issued against under Section 92 of the Act, 1993 is not a fresh proceeding initiated by the prescribed authority, it is an execution proceeding

¶39

-5-

¶40

pursuant to the order passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh.

¶41