1 / 3 2025:CGHC:2774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 279 of 2025 1 - Smt. Gopika Tandi W/o Rohit Tandi Aged About 45 Years Former Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saldih R/o Village – Saldih, Tahsil Saraipali P.S. Bloda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Prithviraj Pradhan S/o Gethal Pradhan, Aged About 50 Years Former Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Saldih, R/o Village – Saldih, Tahsil Saraipali P.S. Bloda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Collector, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer ®, Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Zila Panchayat Mahasamund Through Its Chief Executive Officer District – Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat, Saldih Through Its Secretary, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 / 3 For Petitioners : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the show cause notice dated 15/03/2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby a proceeding under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, “the Adhiniyam”) has been drawn against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have submitted their reply on 10/05/2023, the final order has not been passed by the SDO till date however, the recovery is being made from the petitioners. She further placed reliance on the judgment dated 13/11/2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.6990/2024 in case of Ajay Kurre V/s State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as the petitioners have already filed reply to the show cause notice and the proceeding is pending and the order has not been passed till date, appropriate final order under Section 92 will be passed within a stipulated time. He further submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the show cause notice which has been issued under Section 92(4) of the Adhiniyam wherein the provision prescribed that no action under sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) shall be taken unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned to show 3 / 3 cause why such action should not be taken against him, hence the present petition filed by the petitioner is a premature petition and as the respondent authority has already afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by issuance of show cause notice and the petitioner has already filed reply to the said show cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned show cause notice. 5. Perusal of the impugned show cause notice would show that it has been issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam whereby the respondent/SDO has asked the petitioner to explain why the recovery shall not be made as ombudsman has passed an award against him. It is clear that the petitioner has already filed the reply to the said show cause notice however, the matter is pending consideration before the SDO. The judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as the same is related to provisions of Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, here the show cause notice has been issued in the present case under Section 92. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the SDO (Revenue) to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as the petitioner has already filed the reply to the said show cause notice (Annexure P/1). Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar