Hemlal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, dated 07.06.2022, the present writ petition has been filed.

The two petitioners in the instant writ petition are the present and the previous Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kotgaon, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari. On the ground of certain irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioners, a show cause notice under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short, the Adhiniyam, 1993) was issued on 12.11.2020 to the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 immediately challenged the same before the District Collector on the ground of the non applicability of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993. According to the petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances if at all if proceedings have to be initiated for the alleged irregularities, it would have to be a proceedings drawn under the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short, the Act of 2005) and not under the Adhiniyam, 1993. The petitioner was able to get an interim protection so far as the operation of the show cause notice. The Collector finally vide order dated 22.07.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed the issuance of show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner, Raipur Division which too now stands rejected vide order dated 07.06.2022 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

The petitioner has been strongly harping on the fact that the notice or the proceedings drawn under the Adhiniyam, 1993 would not be applicable. It would be the Act, 2005 which would be applicable. However, the said core issue has not been discussed or decided either by the District Collector or by the Commissioner through the impugned order and the said issue still is left open.

At this juncture the counsel for the State submits that ultimately it is only a show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner and which he has been challenging before various forums during all these period and continues to remain in office without the show cause proceeding progressing any further. Therefore it would not be justified for this court at this juncture to invoke the writ jurisdiction or subject the show cause notice to judicial review. Rather, the petitioner should be permitted to reply to the show cause and he may also be given the liberty to raise the objections so far as jurisdiction and applicability of the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1993, and let the authority who has initiated the show cause proceedings, decide the same on its own merits and then if required, proceed further with the matter.

The submissions made by the State counsel seems to be convincing.

Given the said facts, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach before the respondent No.2 and submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice and in reply the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question of jurisdiction and applicability of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Upon such ground being raised, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the said objection first and only, if required, should thereafter proceed further with the show cause proceedings in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.