1 2025:CGHC:10892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 436 of 2025 1 - Mr. Awadhesh Singh Gautam S/o Mr. Ranjit Singh Gautam Aged About 55 Years Partner Of M/s. Awadesh Singh Gautam Place Of Business At Nakulnar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh- 494552. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Tehsildar, Badebacheli, District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgrah. 3 - The Collector District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Engineer-In-Chief Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001. 5 - The Superintending Engineer Chhattisgrah Rural Road Development Agency, Project Circle Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Nodal Officer Jila Nirman Samiti Dantewada. District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha with Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocates. For Respondents/State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl.A.G. with Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.07 10:30:19 +0530 2 05/03/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned demand note bearing No.1201/Reader-1/2024 dated 16/12/2024 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 146 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’), whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,06,117/- within a period of ten days, failing which, coercive action is proposed to be taken in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned demand note issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 146 of the Code is illegal and arbitrary. In fact, the same has been issued on the basis of the recommendation of the enquiry team constituted by the respondent No.3. The said enquiry has been conducted on a complaint made by one Mukesh Ram Barsa to the Collector against the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in construction of road from Hiroli to Dokapra. He would also submit that before issuing the impugned demand note, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The entire action has been taken only on the basis of recommendation of the enquiry team. He would next submit that even no recovery order pursuance to the recommendation made by the enquiry team has been passed before initiating the proceedings under Section 146 of the Code. Thus, the impugned demand note 3 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and also against the principles of natural justice. 3. (A) Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that large scale irregularities and misappropriation of public exchequer in construction of road has been committed by the petitioner in connivance with the government officials and for which, an FIR has also been lodged. He would submit that on a complaint made to the Collector, the enquiry team has been constituted by the Collector by order dated 01/04/2024 and thereafter, the enquiry team conducted the physical verification of the road with respect to its width, filling of soil, thickness of the construction, construction of the shoulder work and the verification of the bridges. The team also inspected the construction of retaining walls etc. (B) Learned counsel would submit that the enquiry team found that the petitioner has submitted false bills in respect of various works and the same was much below the construction specifications. The team also found that two bridges were found to be missing which were claimed to be constructed by the petitioner. It also found that sub-grade shoulder was constructed and claimed excessive bills in measurement book. According to the enquiry team, the petitioner has cut the trees adjacent to the road and used the soil for filling the base of the road and thereby, caused loss of trees. On proper inspection, the enquiry team found that the petitioner obtained excess 4 payment of Rs.2,01,06,117/- and as such, the same has been recommended for recovery by its enquiry report dated 09/04/2024. (C) On the basis of the recommendation of the enquiry committee, the Collector by order dated 03/06/2024, directed the respondent No.2 to recover the said amount of Rs.2,01,06,117/- and pursuance to the same, the respondent No.2 registered a revenue case on dated 12/12/2024 and notice was issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner refused to accept the same. (D) Learned counsel would submit that this is not a simple case of recovery and it is a case, where large scale misappropriation has been committed by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the State. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition is not maintainable against the demand note issued by the respondent No.2, as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under the Code before the SDO and without availing the same straightaway approached this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is not in dispute that on the complaint of one Mukesh Ram Barsa, the Collector by order dated 01/04/2024 constituted the enquiry team to make spot inspection and submit the enquiry 5 report. The enquiry team conducted the enquiry and affirmed the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also found that the petitioner has committed whopping misappropriation of public exchequer and hence, recommended for recovery of Rs.2,01,06,117/- vide its enquiry report dated 09/04/2024. 6. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Collector by memo dated 03/06/2024 (Annexure R-5) directed the Tahsildar for recovery of the proposed recommended amount from the petitioner. Pursuance to the said memo, the Tahsildar initiated the proceedings under Section 146 of the Code and issued demand note to the petitioner. 7. It appears from the facts narrated before this Court that albeit the spot inspection has been conducted by the enquiry team, but before making recommendation for recovery of the amount, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and straightaway only on the direction of the Collector, the Tahsildar proceeded to recover the said amount by exercising the power under Section 146 of the Code. 8. It is also not in dispute that no recovery order has been passed against the petitioner before proceeding for recovery of the amount as recommended by the enquiry team. Thus, the proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar on the direction of the Collector is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Being a welfare state, before 6 proceeding to penalize a person, sufficient opportunity of hearing has to be afforded. 9. It is the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice. 10. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned demand note dated 16/12/2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner, as per the recommendation made by the enquiry team in its report dated 09/04/2024, in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice including affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep