1 2025:CGHC:39351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4209 of 2025 1 - Barat Lal Suryavanshi S/o Late Chandan Singh, Aged About 55 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sakarra, Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda District Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Malkharouda, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Padma Bareth, Ex-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sakarra Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 (annexure P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the respondent may kindly be directed to initiate proper enquiry against the respondent no. 5 and also conduct recovery proceedings for the embezzlement and financial loss caused by the respondent no. 5 during her tenure, in accordance with law. 10.3 Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 21.07.2025 the respondent authorities have directed the petitioner Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sakarra Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda to pay back a sum of Rs. 5,71,432/- to the ex- Sarpanch (respondent no. 5) as the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,71,432/- relates to the sanctioned amount of road construction work which was allotted to the Ex- Sarpanch for the construction work of CC road from Mineral Institute trust Madhya Pradesh from House of Jajadhar Sahu towards Bharrikhar Nala for which the sanctioned amount was Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file application before the respondent no. 3 raising all his grievances along with all relevant documents and in turn respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law, rules and regulations. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima