1 2025:CGHC:2101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6476 of 2024 1 - Ramwati Sahu W/o Bhagirathi Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Baitari Tahsil - Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Ram Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Sewak Ram Nayak Aged About 51 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Baitari Tahsil Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ombudsman / Lokpal Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna Zila Panchayat Premises Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda Tahsil Gharghoda District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Ashiq Hussain Social Worker Janpad Panchayat Saraipali Tahsil Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Bhagirathi Pradhan Social Worker Janpad Panchayat Saraipali Tahsil Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.14 18:49:10 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the order impugned dated 16/08/2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202408120500057/A-92 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) who initiated the proceeding under Section 92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’). The petitioners have also prayed to quash the order/award dated 11/10/2022 passed by the Ombudsman. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that recovery proceeding has been initiated in pursuance of the order dated 11/10/2022 passed by the Ombudsman. He further submits that he has already moved an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal State Level Ombudsman, Raipur, District, but inspite of that, the same is not being considered. Whereas, the SDO has proceeded under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 for recovery of the amount. 3. Per Contra, learned State counsel states that though the Appellate Authority under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 has not been constituted, however, the petitioners can file reply to the show cause notice issued to them 3 in the proceeding initiated under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. He further submits that the proceeding is being going on various causes. Though, the petitioners has been served with notice, no reply has been filed by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners may be directed to submit the reply to the notice/proceeding initiated by the SDO under Section under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the proceeding initiated under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, it appears that the proceeding has been drawn by the SDO after issuance of notice to the petitioners and the petitioners are appearing before the SDO, but no reply has been filed by them. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to apprise the SDO (Revenue) about the pendency of the appeal filed by them before the Appellate Tribunal State Level Ombudsman, Raipur, by filing the reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The SDO (Revenue) shall take a decision on the reply filed by the petitioners. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul