1 2025:CGHC:16480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3642 of 2022 Shiv Kailash S/o Late Sunder Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kaskela, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue,) Bhaiythan, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Zila Panchayat Surajpur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Gram Panchayat Kaskela, Through Its Secretary, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Intervener : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 18:50:58 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener. 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by directing the office of respondents no. 3 to 5 to take action against the wrongdoers (mentioned in the enquiry report and other relevant documents (Annexure P-1), within a time frame. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may please deem fit and proper. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to call the records from the respondents.” 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village- Kaskela of District- Surajpur (C.G.) and the petitioner and other villagers have made a complaint against Smt. Rukmani Devi (Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kaskela), Smt. Gayatri Devi (Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kaskela), Chatridhari Yadav (Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kaskela), Prem Kumar Yadav (The Then Data Entry Operator) & Kishan Kumar with an allegation that, in the name of the panchayat welfare and development of certain schemes of panahayat of Gram panchayat Kaskela, the embezzlement of panchayat funds (more than Rs.12 Lakhs, as per Inquiry report). The funds embezzled by the wrongdoers are the funds of gram panchayat Kaskela and are sanctioned by the Government, through proper channel. He further submits that an enquiry was conducted in the year 2019- 20 and then, the enquiry report was finalized after appreciating and marshalling the documents, evidence and statements of concerned. The enquiry report does state that the gram panchayat funds were embezzled by the persons named in the enquiry report. Even the criminal prosecution was opined in the enquiry report. It has been contended that the documents and correspondences does reveal that the respondent authorities have directed and suggested the concerned officers and authorities for recovering the embezzled funds of Gram Panchayat Kaskela under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It has been further contended 4 that the funds of panchayat are siphoned and no action is taken by the respondent authorities, who are actually sheltering the illegality and corruption done by the handful persons named in the enquiry report and other documents. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the Intervener submits that the enquiry report, in which the embezzlement which is stated to be done by the office bearers of the Gram Panchayat Kaskela, has been set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.04.2021 itself, as such, this petition has become infructuous. 5 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, this Court do not find it to be a fit case warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous because inquiry report alleging embezzlement has already been set-aside by the Commissioner, Surguja Division. No order as to costs. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh