1 2025:CGHC:35324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3506 of 2025 Parasram Sahu S/o Shri Panduram Sahu, Aged About 72 Years Cultivator And Village Patel, R/o Village Nandal, P.S. No. 47, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Amolakchand Sahu Ex Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nandal, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara C.G. 2 - Malik Ram Lahre Then Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Nandal, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bemetara C.G. 4 - Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg C.G. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 23.07.2025 ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.23 17:45:59 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:- “a. Call for the entire records of case from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal and thereafter allow the petition. b. Quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent no. 4 the order dated 26.06.2024(Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 and consequently the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 5. c. Direct the concerned authorities to conduct a fresh, fair and impartial investigation into the allegations of fake execution of construction work in Village Nandal, with due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and evidence, possibly by an independent agency or a higher-level committee. d. Pass any other appropriate writ, order, or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice with cost of petition from the respondent no. 1 & 2”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities that is respondent no. 3 to 5 have failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations. The complaint pertains to serious financial irregularities and potential misappropriation of public funds, which warrant a thorough and impartial investigation, rather than a summary dismissal. He submit that the investigation conducted was perfunctory and superficial. The petitioner submits that the investigation report relied upon by the authorities was incomplete, biased, and failed to adequately examined the specific instances of fake construction work alleged. There was no proper onsite verification, technical 3 assessment, or examination of relevant record in a transparent manner. 3. He further submits that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity to present evidence or rebut the investigation report. The petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to adduce independent evidence to substantiate the claims or to cross- examined the members of the investigation team regarding their findings. The reliance solely on an investigation report, without proper scrutiny or allowing the petitioner to challenge its content effectively, constitutes a violation of natural justice. Thus on these submission he prays for above mentioned reliefs. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy which he could avail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the submission made by the counsel for the respective parties where the counsel for both the respective parties admitted the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Commissioner before 4 the State, therefore, there is no such ground upon which the present petition could be entertained. Hence the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the State Government. Certified copies as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza