Chattisgarh High Court
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 353 of 2021
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukali Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Panchayat And Rural
Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
6. Vinod Kumar Rajput S/o Shravan Kumar Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o
Gram Panchayat Sukali, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause - title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Shri Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6 : Shri Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt Vimla Singh Kapoor, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
15.11.2021
Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 5 / State and Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for
respondent No.6.
2. By this writ appeal, the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent
No. 6 in WPC No. 950 of 2021, is assailing the order dated 22.02.2021.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order, read as follows:
"1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
is that the petitioner carried out certain work of Gram
Panchayat Sukali under the MANREGA Scheme.
Thereafter, the amount having not been
released, the petitioner made certain representation to
the authorities before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Panchayat, Lormi. On such application, a team was
constituted and after inspection of the site, they gave a
report vide Annexure P-5 wherein at Clause 6 a
categorical finding was recorded that the petitioner has
constructed 4 banks to have step in the pond and the
amount though has been sanctioned but it has not yet
been released by the Sarpanch, therefore, the amount
be directed to be released for the said works carried out
in Gram Panchayat Sukali. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner made representations to the Collector
and other officers vide Annexure P-6, however,
eventually the amount is not being released.
2. A perusal of enquiry report Annexure P-5 would
show that after enquiry it was found that the petitioner
has constructed the banks in the water body and
accordingly recommended for release of the amount
and the recommendation also contains that the amount
be released from the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Sukali. The construction has been carried out at the
behest of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat
Mungeli and the enquiry report purports that direction
be followed as per Annexure P-5. Considering such
facts, it is directed that after due verification of the facts,
the concerned respondents may release the amount
within a further period of 45 days."
4. Mr. Tiwari submits that a reading of the aforesaid order would indicate
that contentions were advanced that the Sarpanch i.e. appellant herein had not
released the amount said to be due to the writ petitioner and that the learned
Single Judge also directed payment of the amount after verification of facts.
However, the respondent No. 6 was not heard before the said order was passed,
as no notice was issued to him. It is further submitted by him that no work was
undertaken by the writ petitioner and as such, no dues are payable to him.
5. Mr. Bhaduri, while not disputing the fact that the respondent No. 6 in
the writ petition was not notified and heard, submits that the work was completed
by the writ petitioner. Mr. Sharma also submits that the respondent No.6 in the writ
petition was not heard before the impugned order came to be passed.
6. In the case of Johra and others v. State of Haryana and Others,
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the basic
fundamental principle in law that no order can be passed by any Court in any
judicial proceedings against any party to such proceedings without hearing and
giving such party an opportunity of hearing.
7. In view of the above proposition of law, without entering into the
controversy as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to any sum of money from
the respondents, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of learned Single
Judge and remand the case back to the learned Single Judge for fresh
consideration.
8. At this juncture, Mr. Bhaduri submits that on 20.10.2021, the Chief
Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, District - Mungeli, i.e. the
respondent No.5 in the writ appeal, had passed an order rejecting the claim of the
writ petitioner and therefore, he may be permitted to assail the same in accordance
with law.
9. Having regard to the above submission of Mr. Bhaduri, we leave it
open to the writ petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available in law.
10. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations
and direction. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
