1 2025:CGHC:10039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1266 of 2022 1 - Inderman Sahu S/o Late Shri Aado Ram Aged About 61 Years Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhainsatara, District- Gariyaband, C.G. 491444 Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - The Collector Gariyaband, Collectorate Baherabuda, Chhattisgarh 493889 3 - The Ceo Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, C.G. 493885 4 - The Ceo Jila Panchayat Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 493889 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate For State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL For Intervener : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 08/02/2022 passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Fengeshwar, whereby the order of recovery of Rs. 2,43,000/- has been passed against the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.03 10:26:07 +0530 2 petitioner. 2. This Court vide order dated 11/03/2022 issued notices to the respondents and also passed an interim order that on the petitioner’s making payment of Rs. 1,18,000/- to the respondent No.3 within a period of 10 days from the date of the order, the recovery of the remaining amount, shall remain stayed until next date of hearing. 3. During pendency of the instant petition, the proceeding was drawn against the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 1993), which was concluded vide order 12/02/2024 (Annexure-A/D1) by which the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order passed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Gariyaband on 12/02/2024 (Annexure-A/D1), the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges, and as such, this petition has become infructuous. However, pursuant to the interim order of this Court passed on 11/03/2022, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- before the respondent No. 3, and the said fact has also been reiterated in the order dated 12/02/2024, therefore, Respondent No. 3 may be directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the interim order dated 3 11/03/2022 and order dated 12/02/2024 passed by the SDO, Gariyaband. 7. It appears from the order dated 12/02/2024 (Annexure-A/D1) that the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 1,18,000/- before respondent No.3 in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 11/03/2022. 8. Since, the proceeding under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has already been concluded, therefore, this petition has now become infructuous. Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if the deposited amount is still with respondent No.3, the same be refund to the petitioner after examining and verifying his claim in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul