Allowed

Gopal Krishna Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2025WPS/6128/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash a recovery notice dated 26.08.2017 issued against him. The single judge quashed the impugned order as it was passed without an enquiry, afforded no opportunity of hearing, and failed to cite the legal provision empowering the order. The court held the order unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 26.08.2017 was quashed as it was passed without an enquiry, hearing, and citation of law.

Gopal Krishna Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.15 10:44:38 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:32251

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 6128 of 2017

¶7

Gopal Krishna Sharma S/o Kamlesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Rural Engineering Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶11

Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Office Of Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer Revenue , Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner :	Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For State/Respondents No. 1,2: 3 & 5	Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General
For Respondent No. 4 :	Mr. Kuwar Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

11.07.2025

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶22

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions

¶23

¶24

quashing the impugned notice dated 26.08.2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted in the post of Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineering Services at Division Janjgir-Champa in the year 2017. He would further submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 26.08.2017 issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,30,847/- without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would also submit that even the provision of law is not mentioned in the order impugned. He would contend that the order is bad in law.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that an enquiry was conducted by the Jila Panchayat and on the basis of its report, an order was passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpur dated 26.08.2017. They would further submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before the issuance of the recovery notice dated 26.08.2017. They would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶29

Perusal of the notice dated 26.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) would show that vide impugned notice, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,30,847/- by 07.09.2017. It further appears that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing, even the provision of the law exercised by the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) is not mentioned in the order impugned. As the authority

¶30

¶31

has not mentioned the provisions of law, the petitioner cannot prefer an appeal either according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 or the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 or Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966; therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed .

¶32

However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh

¶33

enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.

¶34

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

$iddhant

Gopal Krishna Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Krishna Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripal Singh Vs Krishna Kumar

Ghanshyam Vs Rupranjan

Saiyed Haider Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udayram @ Dungru Vs Deleted (Mohit Ram)

Chudamani Vs RAMESh

Sanjay Bairagi Vs State of Chhattisgarh