1 2025:CGHC:43633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3393 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Pandey S/o Late Shri Lalji Pandey Aged About 63 Years R/o Mahamaya Ward, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Manoj Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Dev Prasad Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.29 10:53:17 +0530 2 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner in the instant writ petition is challenging the impugned notice dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog as being without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 7(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired employee and retired from the post of Chief Municipal Officer on 31.10.2023. During the service tenure of the petitioner, various purchases were made by the Municipality through gem portal after due approval from the President-in-Council of the Nagar Panchayat, Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). However, some of the Parshad of the said Municipality along with the complainant made complaint with regard to aforesaid purchase made through gem portal. In order to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid complaint, under the direction and instructions of Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, an inquiry was conducted by the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and the inquiry report dated 27.05.2022 was submitted to the Director. That in the said inquiry, the complaint was found to be baseless. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that with regard to the same subject matter i.e. with regard to purchase of various public utilities item from the gem portal, another inquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathariya District Mungeli (C.G.) on 16.10.2023. The inquiry report dated 16.10.2023 was sent by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathariya District Mungeli (C.G.) to the Collector Mungeli wherein no discrepancy with regard to the purchase from gem portal was found. He further submits that since the inquiry report was not in favour of the complainant therefore he was regularly pursuing his complaint with ulterior motives. That once upon on his complaint, another inquiry was conducted by Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and in the said inquiry notice was issued to the complainant on 22.02.2024 and his statement 3 was recorded by the inquiry officer on 27.02.2024. After adducing the evidence available on the record, detailed inquiry report was submitted by the Joint and Director, Urban Administration Development, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development on 02.04.2024 wherein it was found that on the basis of earlier inquiry dated 27.05.2022, the complaint was found to be baseless. It is further submitted that one fine morning without any rhyme and reason, the petitioner was astonished to receive notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog which categorically stated that the complaint is for the period 03.04.2018 to 28.04.2021 in respect of purchase through gem portal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that along with the notice dated 14.05.2025 a copy of the inquiry report dated 04.04.2025 was enclosed which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner as neither while conducting enquiry any notice was issued to the petitioner to explain his case nor such enquiry report was supplied by any of the authorities to the petitioner. That in the said inquiry, the complaint made by Manoj Kumar Pandey was found to be correct. Since the complaint agitated by the respondent no.4 / complainant is for the period 03.04.2018 to 28.04.2021 which much beyond twelve months from the date on which the action the complaint against becomes known to complainant and hence the notice dated 14.05.2025 issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 4 has already filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint which is pending before the respondent No. 2. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the respondent No. 4 has filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint filed against the petitioner, therefore 4 this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to take a decision in the application filed by the respondent No. 4 as expeditiously as possible. Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti