Yogesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1200 Chatt

                                    1




      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPC No. 3613 of 2021

1. Yogesh Sahu, S/o Shri Makhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
   Village Pipraud, Tehsil Abhanpur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
   District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Panchayat
   And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa
   Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector     District   Raipur   Chhattisgarh.,   District   :   Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority, Sub
   Division, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, District :
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Shri Sanjay Yadav, S/o Shri Gokul Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
   Village Pipraud Tehsil Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondents

WPC No. 1148 of 2022

1. Yogesh Sahu S/o Shri Makhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pipraud, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector/District Election Officer, (Local Election), District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisonal Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority, Sub Division, Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Tehsildar and Prescribed Authority, (Panchayat), Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pipraud, Block Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

WPC No. 3925 of 2021

1. Yogesh Sahu, S/o Shri Makhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Pipraud, Tehsil Abhanpur ,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Authority Sub Divisional , Abhanpur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5. The Secretary Gram Panchayat, Pipraud, Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur , District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani with Ms. Mahima Gupta, Advocates.

For State                  : Mr. Rahul Jha, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.5        : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 08/03/2022

1. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and the

counsel for respondent No.5 have raised objection on the

maintainability of the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed under

Article 226 Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated

11.8.2021 passed under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,

1993, is maintainable. The petitioner was never afforded any

opportunity of proper hearing before passing the impugned order. As it

is a case, in which, the question of violation of fundamental right and

the non following of principle of natural justice has been raised,

therefore, such a question can be determined only under Article 226

Constitution of India.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Udayram Kaiwerth Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others,

reported in (2011) 4 MPHT(C.G.) 33, in which, it was held that the

proper opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner which was

violation of statutory mandate granted Section 40 of the Adhiniyam and

also the principle of natural justice.

Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of M.P. High

Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.,

reported in (2004) 4 MPLJ 6 and another judgment of this Court in the

case of Vandana Gupta Vs. Omprakash Gupta, reported in 2021

LawSuit (Chh) 612, hence, it is submitted that on the basis of the

questions raised in this petition the same is maintainable under Article

226 Constitution of India.

3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 3

submits, that the petitioner was given fair opportunity to contest the

case against him which is reflected from the impugned order. It is also

submitted that the remedy is available to the petitioner under

Chhattigarh Panchayat(Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1995, hence,

there being statutory remedy available to the petitioner, he has no

entitlement to seek relief by this petition.

4. Learned counsel for other respondent opposes the submissions made

by counsel for petitioner and submits, that the petition is not

maintainable simply on the ground that the statutory remedy is

available to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order. It

is submitted that the petitioner has made a false statement in

paragraph No.5 of the petition, that there is no any alternate or

efficacious remedy available accept to approach this Court. It is also

submitted that it is first time the petitioner is raising this ground, that he

was not supplied with inquiry report, hence, the present petition is not

maintainable.

5. Considered on the submissions. The petitioner has himself filed the

copy of the inquiry report dated 10.6.2021. On perusing the copy of the

order-sheets dated 12.7.2021, it is seen that the petitioner had raised

objection about not being given opportunity of hearing in the inquiry

proceeding which was rejected by the respondent No.3. On this basis,

the ground raised by the petitioner in this petition is only to this extent

that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing, regarding which

there are documents to show that he was granted opportunity at the

stage of inquiry and also at the stage of the proceeding under Section

40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, hence, on the basis of this observation, it

appears that there is no reason found to entertain this petition under

Article 226 Constitution of India. The facts and circumstances had

been different in the cases cited by the petitioner and the facts and

circumstances of the present case are not the same. As there is

statutory remedy available to the petitioner to file appeal against the

order of respondent No.3 before the Collector i.e. respondent No.2

under Rule 3 of Rule, 1995, therefore, I am of this view that the

present petition is not maintainable, hence, the petition is dismissed.

6. On the basis of this order passed in this petition, W.P.(C)

No.3925/2021 and W.P.(C) No.1148/2022 are also disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha