Dismissed¶71

Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2025WPC/975/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ petition under Article 226; unexplained delay of about three years in filing; concurrent findings of fact by revenue/panchayat authorities; non-interference with concurrent orders; S. 40 and S. 89 C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993; discharge of ex-Sarpanch; financial irregularities and embezzlement in Gram Panchayat Amora; additional evidence before appellate authority without application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; reliance on Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. (SLP (C) 3008/2022) and Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136); WPC No. 975 of 2014 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches, having been filed in 2014 after an inordinate delay of about three years with no sufficient reason shown by the petitioners. ¶68

Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 975 of 2014

¶6

Order Reserved on 04.12.2024

¶7

Order Delivered on 03.03.2025

¶8

1 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Manharan Sahu Aged About 40 Years Ex-Upsarpanch,

¶9

2 - Ramanuj Dhuri S/o Shri Janak Ram Dhuri Aged About 45 Years Farmer,

¶10

3 - Vijay S/o Shri Gendram Aged About 42 Years Farmer,

¶11

4 - Rajkumar S/o Shri Gend Ram Aged About 42 Years Farmer,

¶12

5 - Ashok Dadsena S/o Shri Madan Dadsena Aged About 45 Years Farmer,

¶13

6 - Shyam Dadsena S/o SHri Madan Aged About 43 Years Farmer, 7 - Uttarra Dhruw S/o Shri Pheku Ram Dhruw Aged About 43 Years Farmer,

¶14

8 - Bhuneshwar Prasad S/o Shri Ramji Dhuri Aged About 45 Years Farmer,

¶15

9 - Kripa Ram S/o Shri Tungan Ram Aged About 46 Years Farmer, 10 - Munna Patel S/o Shri Ramji Aged About 44 Years Farmer, 11 - Mant Ram S/o Shri Jivrakhan Mehar Aged About 46 Years Farmer,

¶16

12 - Kishun Ram S/o Shri Mayaram Aged About 47 Years Farmer,

¶17

All are R/o Village Amora, Tah Pathariya, Po Amora, Ps Takhatapur, Civil Distt Bilaspur, Revenue Distt Mungeli, Cg, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners

¶18

¶19

versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg,

¶21

2 - The Commissioner Division Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg 3 - The Collector, Mungeli, Distt Mungeli, Cg 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Mungeli, Distt Mungeli, Cg 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pathariya, Distt Mungeli,, Cg

¶22

6 - Smt. Uma Dadsena W/o Shri Byash Aged About 40 Years Caste Marar, Ex-Sarpanch, R/o Vill Amora, Tah. Pathariya, Distt Mungeli, Ps Takhatpur, Po Amora, Civil Distt Bilaspur, Revenue Distt Mungeli, Cg, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶23

7 - The Secretary Gram Panchayat Amora, R/o Vill Amora, Tah Pathriya, Ps Takhatpur, Po Amora, Civil Distt Bilaspur, Revenue Distt Mungeli, Cg

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

(Cause-title is taken from CIS System)

¶26

For Petitioner :- Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State :- Ms. Isha Jajodiya, P.L.

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order

¶28

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶29

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) and 20.01.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 and confirmed the order dated 12.05.2008 (Annexure P-2), in the interest of justice.

¶30

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶31

2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioners have filed a complaint against one Smt. Uma Dadsena Sarpanch of Gram

¶32

¶33

Panchayat Amora (Respondent no. 6) and Secretary of Gram Panchayat (Respondent No. 7) before the Respondent No. 4 alleging that the Respondent No. 6 had not complied the rules and regulations, while appointing the Panchayat Karmi (Respondent No. 6) as he was above 35 years old, at the time of appointment and had low percentage than others. The Respondent No. 3 had rejected other 8-10 applications of that regard without showing the reasons. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 6 had committed huge financial irregularities and hampered the Panchayat through all ways of rural development. She usually did not come to Panchayat meetings and her husband misused her post and used to make her false signatures on the papers to cheat and harm the Panchayat.

¶34

3. The Respondent No. 6 had given the government ponds to her relatives and well acquainted with nearest persons without taking any tax or fees. She had allotted Govt. pond "Kumhar Dabri" of total area of 3.00 acres to her father-in-laws’ brother Gopal Dadsena, her bother-in- law Narendra Dadsena and her relative Jal Bai for free Pisciculture while her brother-in-law Gopal Dadsena was a ward member of that Panchayat at that time. She had allotted another Govt. pond namely "Bandhwa Pond" of total area of 3.50 acres to the ward members namely Pradeep Patel, Ashok and Magadh Patel to give them benefit of free Pisciculture without any leave amount. She had allotted other govt. "Amliha pond" of total area of 6.00 acres to her nearest persons and

¶35

¶36

supporters such as Ex Sarpanch Girish Kumar Patel and ward member Hariharan Dhuri without any leave amount for free Pisciculture. She was getting full support from the abovementioned respondent authorities by committing big economic irregularities and her such act was quite contrary to provision of section 40 of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Adhiniyam’]. She directly and indirectly gave advantages to her relatives and the nearest. Her such act was quite illegal and against the provisions under section 40 of the Adhiniyam.

¶37

4. The Respondent No. 6 had not submitted the details of total sum of Rs.1,01,600/- to the account of Bazar contract (Bazar Theka) of the year 2006-07 in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat and embezzled entire sum with help of Respondent No. 7. She made an excuse of expending the above mentioned sum on social building works to protect herself from the above allegation. She did not avail and did not submit any documentary evidence on the record before the Respondent No. 4 in her favour to prove that such allegation against her was false. The Respondents No. 6 & 7 had also embezzled the Govt. sum allotted for the construction of C.C. Road and Nistar Unit. They did not pay the due wages of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner No. 2, in spite getting drawn the entire sum allotted for construction works. The petitioner No. 2 had complained to Respondents No. 4 & 5 in this regard. The respondent No. 6 had also embezzled the entire necessary and

¶38

¶39

very important sum for home construction of poor persons allotted for Mantram (petitioner No. 11). The petitioner No. 11 had complained to respondent No. 4 & 5 in this regard, the respondent No. 5 had appointed and authorized to Assistant Development Scope Officer Shri R.K. Kashyap as an inquiry officer to enquire into the matter.

¶40

5. The Assistant Development Scope Officer after completing the enquiry, submitted the report to respondent No. 5 and told in his report that he came to knew after observing the cash book of Gram Panchayat Amora from 01.04.2000 to 10.03.2003, the entry of payment of above-mentioned sum to petitioner No. 11 and another person namely Pitairam, S/o. Punwa Gond had been mentioned and on the basis of available certificates the signature of the petitioner No. 11 on the acknowledgement was quite different to the original signature of the petitioner No. 11. The petitioner No. 11 had also denied to receive the above payment with his affidavit. The petitioner No. 12 had also denied to receive the payment for home construction allotted by Govt. under the scheme of Indira Awaas. The Enquiry Officer Shri Kashyap has reported that the respondent No. 7 has stated that after canceling the allotted above sum of petitioner No.11, the sum of Rs.22,000/of the home constructions of the year 2005-2006 has been paid to the respondent No. 12, but they had not produced any document in this record to prove the above statement. The petitioner Nо. 12 has also denied to receive the above payment from respondents

¶41

¶42

No. 6 & 7 with his affidavit. The Enquiry Officer Shri Kashyap had submitted his report to the respondent No. 5 with above details. The petitioners No. 11 & 12 had not known about the above sum for their home construction allotted by the Govt., but when the team of Suraj Dal of April 2007 visited to their village for the enquiry of the progress of the running employment schemes of the Govt, and the Incharge of Suraj Dal Mr. Ravindra Tiwari asked them about the homes constructed under the scheme of Indira Awas, the petitioners No. 11 & 12 came to know about it. The respondents No. 11 & 12 were answerless, because the above sum had not been given to them. The respondents No. 6 & 7 had embezzled it. The Incharge of the team asked the respondents No. 6 & 7 whether they have paid the above sum, but they had not paid the same. The respondents No. 6 & 7 after coming the above fact in the knowledge of the Suraj Team, assured the team to pay the above sum to the petitioners No. 11 & 12 very soon. But, they have still not paid them.

¶43

6. The respondent No. 6 had committed big irregularities in the Universal allotment scheme as she had used the kerosene oil in the half quantity of the allotment very year in her tractor for her personal works. The respondent No. 6 did not produced any documentary evidence to contest the above allegation before the respondent No. 4. In absence of any documentary evidence the allegation was proved against the respondents No. 6 & 7. The respondents No. 6 & 7 often imposed sand royalty of Rs.70/- from

¶44

¶45

every trip of tractor, but they did not pass any resolution in that regard and embezzled the entire sum imposed and did not submit any details of the accounts in that record in the meeting of Panchayat. They made an excuse to spend the above imposed sum in the construction work of Mahamaya Temple, but they did not submit any such documentary evidence to prove their side before the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 had issued notice along with charge-sheet to respondents No. 6 & 7 and after getting served the notices, the respondents No. 6 & 7 submitted their reply to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4, considering the complaint and replies submitted by the respondents No. 6 & 7, had made joint Committee of C.E.O. Pathariya (Respondent No. 5) and Naib Tahsildar, Mungeli to enquire into the allegations of mentioned in the complaint. The member of above committee Naib Tahsildar Mungeli enquired into the matter on 13.07.2007 and called the respondents No. 6 & 7 with their records, but respondent No. 7 was not present while inquiry and respondent No. 6 was present and did not cooperate the enquiry making excuse of not having all documents, as the respondent No. 7 did have all of them, thus Naib Tahsildar Mungeli, after recording Panchnama in the presence of all petitioners and other persons of the village on the same date made a report and sent it to respondent No. 4 on 20.07.2010. The respondent No. 4 had given the opportunity to produce evidences to the respondent No. 6 & 7 in their favour, but they did not produce any documentary and oral evidence before the

¶46

¶47

respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 has mentioned it on the order sheet dated 12.05.2008 of his record. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4, after scrutiny of the complaint, reply, all reports and other evidences submitted came to the conclusion that the respondents No. 6 & 7 were guilty of serious economic irregularities and carelessness of Govt. duties. They have embezzled the Govt. sum, which had been obtained and allotted for various development works of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that they had misused their post. The respondent No. 4 punished respondent No. 6 under section 40 of the Adhiniyam by discharging her from the post of Sarpanch and recommended to impose all the embezzled Govt. sum from respondents No. 6 and 7 under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam vide its order dated 12.05.2008. The respondent no. 4 considered both the respondents No. 6 and 7 guilty of embezzlement of Govt. sum. The respondents No. 6 and 7 preferred to file a appeal before the respondent No. 3, the respondents No. 6 and 7 have produced new additional documentary evidence without filing any application under order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C.

¶48

7. The respondent No. 3 while considering the appeal did not appreciate the fact and circumstances of the case and evidences available on record and made his own views and presumptions on the legal points under evidence Act and allowed the appeal vide his order dated 20.1.2009. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 3 preferred to file a revision petition

¶49

¶50

before the respondent No. 2 on the grounds that the respondent No. 3 has not appreciated the evidences and facts and circumstances of the case under the provisions of law. But the respondent No. 2 also did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences available on record properly and dismissed it, vide its order dated 29.7.2011, hence this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court for quashing the said impugned order.

¶51

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders dated 29.07.2011 and 20.01.2009 passed by the respondents No. 2 & 3 were quit contrary to settled law and legal procedure, which are liable to be set-aside. He submits that the respondent No. 3 has taken its own views and presumption on the provisions of evidence Act and allowed the appeal of respondents No. 6 & 7 and dismissed the order dated 12.05.2008 of the respondent No. 4 vide its order dated 20.01.2009 and the respondent No. 2 also overlooking the same dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners vide its order dated 29.07.2011. He further submits that the respondent No. 4 had given the opportunity of hearing to the respondents No. 6 & 7 to produce the evidences in their support, but they did not produce any evidence either before the Enquiry Officer or before the respondent No. 4, thus, the allegations against the respondents No. 6 & 7 were proved. It is further submitted that the order dated 12.05.2008 of the respondent No. 3 was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, reports

¶52

¶53

submitted and evidences available on record, but the respondents No. 2 & 3 ignored them and passed their orders dated 29.07.2011 and 20.01.2009 and the same are liable to be set-aside and the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶54

9. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 & learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging the orders dated 20/01/2009 and 29/07/2011 passed by respondents No. 2 & 3. He submits that the impugned order was passed on 29/07/2011 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2014 and no proper explanation has been given by the petitioners for this inordinate delay, therefore, on this count alone, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶55

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record with due care and caution.

¶56

11. In the present matter, at first, this Court has to consider the delay and laches in filing this petition as against the order dated 12.05.2008 and 20.01.2009, this petition was filed on 09.05.2014.

¶57

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State Of U.P. in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3008/2022 decided on 28.02.2022, has held as under :-

¶58

“4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitioner prayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated

¶59

¶60

19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and as observed hereinabove prayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 being Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011, which was also filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also barred by delay and latches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner, which as such was made after a period of 10 years, expeditiously and it gave the fresh blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and latches. The High Court by passing the order dated 07.04.2017 as such did not realise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the same was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed under which the right was claimed. We

¶61

¶62

have come across number of such orders passed by the High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision is taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders are passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation, the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter on merits.”

¶63

13. Now the matter has to be seen in another angle. The present is a case in which there is concurrent finding of facts and based upon the same, the respondent authorities have passed concurrent order. This Court has to see whether the concurrent finding and the orders are required to be interfered with or not.

¶64

14. In this issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Addagada Raghavamma vs. Addagada Chenchamma reported

¶65

¶66

in 1964 AIR 136 has held that when there is concurrent finding of facts, then in such situation, interference under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶67

“This Court has the power to review the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts in appropriate cases. But this Court ordinarily will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional cases, where the findings are such as "shocks the conscience of the Court or by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of some principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave-, injustice has been done' . It is not possible nor advisable to define those circumstances. It must necessarily be left to the discretion of this Court having regard to the facts of a particular case. The present case is not one of those exceptional cases where a departure from the salutary practice adopted by this Court is justified.”

¶68

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact the present petition has been filed in the year 2014, i.e. after an inordinate delay of three years and no sufficient reason has been shown by the petitioners in respect of delay and laches in this regard, this Court holds that the petition suffers with vice of delay and laches. Perusal of the record also shows that both the authorities, upon considering the facts and circumstances

¶69

¶70

of the case, have passed concurrent order against the petitioners and further taking note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid aspect and also after evaluating the material evidence available on record, the authorities have rightly rejected the complaint filed by the petitioners, this Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders under challenge. As such, no interference is called for under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶71

16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶74

Vishakha

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Appellate order dated 20.01.2009 of the Collector, Mungeli (respondent no. 3) allowing the appeal of respondents no. 6 & 7 against the SDO's order dated 12.05.2008, and revisional order dated 29.07.2011 of the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division (respondent no. 2) dismissing the petitioners' revision, both sought to be quashed.¶29
Commissioner, Division Bilaspur (respondent no. 2) and Collector, Mungeli (respondent no. 3) · 29.07.2011
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed a complaint before respondent no. 4 (SDO, Revenue Mungeli) against Smt. Uma Dadsena, Sarpanch (respondent no. 6), and the Gram Panchayat Secretary (respondent no. 7), alleging non-compliance in appointing the Panchayat Karmi, financial irregularities, and misuse of office.¶31
Prior proceeding
Allegations included allotment of Government ponds ('Kumhar Dabri', 'Bandhwa Pond', 'Amliha pond') to relatives and supporters for free pisciculture, contrary to section 40 of the Adhiniyam.¶36
Prior proceeding
On complaints of non-payment of wages and Indira Awaas amounts, respondent no. 5 appointed Assistant Development Scope Officer Shri R.K. Kashyap as inquiry officer, who reported discrepancies in the cash book and denied receipts.¶39
Prior proceeding
A joint committee of CEO Pathariya and Naib Tahsildar Mungeli enquired; the Naib Tahsildar recorded a Panchnama on 13.07.2007 and sent his report to respondent no. 4 on 20.07.2010.¶45
Prior proceeding
Respondent no. 4, by order dated 12.05.2008, found respondents no. 6 & 7 guilty of serious economic irregularities, discharged respondent no. 6 from the post of Sarpanch under section 40 of the Adhiniyam, and recommended recovery of the embezzled sums under Section 89 of the Adhiniyam.¶47
Prior proceeding
Respondents no. 6 & 7 appealed to respondent no. 3 (Collector), producing additional documents without an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; the appeal was allowed by order dated 20.1.2009.¶48
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' revision before respondent no. 2 (Commissioner, Bilaspur Division) was dismissed by order dated 29.7.2011, leading to the present writ petition.¶50
Prior proceeding
Writ petition filed on 09.05.2014, challenged on the additional ground of delay and laches (about three years after the impugned orders).¶56

Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.L. Gokhle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kajal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kripal Singh Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rukhmani Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajeshwari Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh