1 2025:CGHC:17166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5369 of 2022 Kul Singh S/o Sahoran Singh Aged About 47 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Tikeja, Tahsil Korba, Distt.-Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Korba (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Korba (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service Division, Korba Distt.- Korba (C.G.) 6 - M/s. M.N. Agarwal Satya Narayan Agarwal, B Class Contractor, Power House Road, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 18:09:43 +0530 2 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and set-aside the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 5. (Annexure P/1). 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the the State Government vide circular dated 29.08.2022 exceeded the earlier fix amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of construction work, which has been done by the working agency of Gram Panchayat in the State and insofar as the impugned work order is concerned, which is not more than Rs.25,00,000/- and according to the circular, less than the prescribed limit of Rs.50,00,000/-, but the same has not been provided to the working agency of the Gram Panchayat and the respondent No. 5 arbitrarily without looking into circular dated 29.08.2022 did the aforesaid work as a working agency of respondent No. 5, which is direct violation of the circular dated 29.08.2022 by which respondent No. 5 deprived the right of the petitioner of Gram Panchayat which has been duly provided by the State and the aforesaid work ought to be done though the working agency of Gram Panchayat, Tilkeja. 3 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for State submits that the work order which is being challenged by the petitioner being Sarpanch has already been completed and the validity of the work has come to an end, as such the petitioner is required to challenge the same while passing a resolution, which is not challenged by the petitioner as well as term of the petitioner as Sarpanch has already been expired. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the submission of the State that the work order which is being challenged by the petitioner being Sarpanch has already been completed and the validity of the work has come to an end, as such the petitioner is required to challenge the same while passing a resolution, which is not challenged by the petitioner as well as term of the petitioner as Sarpanch has already been expired, I do not find anything for adjudication in the matter. 7 Accordingly, instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again, if any exigency arises. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh