[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sandhya Biswas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
1
YOGESH Digitally 2026:CGHC:18009
signed by
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.04.21
17:00:34 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3667 of 2021
Sandhya Biswas W/o Shri Bhajan Biswas Aged About 38 Years Ex -
Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat Dwarkapuri Janpad Panchayat
Koilybeda, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattigarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Social Welfare Development Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Collector Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker District Uttar
Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Koilybeda District
Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar
Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
21.04.2026
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the
legality, validity, and propriety of the orders/awards dated
13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 05 (Sub-Divisional Officer
(R), Pakhanjur), whereby recovery of amounts totaling
₹53,85,444/-, ₹10,730/-, and ₹2,262/- has been directed on the
basis of a Social Audit conducted by the Gram Sabha under the
provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, 2005. The petitioner has prayed for following
relief(s):-
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned awards/orders dated
13/08/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the
respondent No.05, in the interest of justice.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent authorities to quash the show
cause notice dated 21-02-2019 (Annexure-P/6)
issued by the Respondent No. 03.
10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper, may also kindly be
granted to the petitioners, in the interest of
justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated in law,
being arbitrary, mala fide and in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is contended that the complaint dated 10.01.2019
was motivated and based on false and frivolous allegations.
Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by the competent
authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering
Services, Koilybeda, who, after due consideration, recommended
a recovery of ₹7,01,760/- only. However, subsequently, the Social
Audit Unit, without any lawful basis and ignoring the earlier inquiry
report, conducted a social audit and arbitrarily enhanced the
alleged recovery to ₹53,85,444/- along with other minor amounts,
which is wholly unjustified and disproportionate.
3. It is further submitted that the social audit proceedings were
conducted in a biased manner, as the Gram Sabha meeting was
presided over by a person who is a political rival of the petitioner,
thereby rendering the entire process tainted with malice.
Moreover, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, nor
was she afforded any opportunity of hearing before fastening such
huge liability upon her. The impugned orders dated 13.08.2021
passed by Respondent No. 05 are thus in clear breach of audi
alteram partem and deserve to be set aside on this ground alone.
4. Learned counsel further submits that even after issuance of
notices by the prescribed authority, no final action has been taken
in accordance with law. The petitioner has duly submitted her
reply; however, the authorities have failed to consider the same
and have proceeded mechanically on the basis of the Social Audit
report. Such non-application of mind and inaction on part of the
authorities renders the impugned action unsustainable and liable
to be quashed.
5. Learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing for
respondents No. 3 and 4 submit that the impugned orders have
been passed strictly in accordance with law on the basis of
findings recorded during the Social Audit conducted under the
provisions of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. It is contended that the
Social Audit is a statutory mechanism to ensure transparency and
accountability in implementation of the scheme, and the recovery
has been directed on the basis of material irregularities and
financial misappropriation detected therein. It is further submitted
that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the
course of proceedings, and the allegations regarding violation of
principles of natural justice are misconceived. The respondents
assert that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy
available under the relevant provisions, and therefore, the present
petition is not maintainable. The impugned orders, being reasoned
and based on factual findings, do not warrant any interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record.
7. From a consideration of the submissions advanced, it transpires
that pursuant to the interim order dated 09.09.2021, no further
action has been taken by the prescribed authority. It is also evident
that, in accordance with law, the prescribed authority is required to
initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'Adhiniyam') only after
issuance of proper notice and affording due opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the provisions of Section 92(4) of the Adhiniyam,
in the event of non-compliance.
8. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that, at this stage, no adverse
order has been passed against her warranting adjudication by this
Court, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition
does not survive for consideration on merits at this juncture.
However, it is made clear that in the event any adverse order is
passed against the petitioner by the competent authority, she shall
be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law,
including approaching this Court.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of,
reserving the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
