1 2025:CGHC:51309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5308 of 2025 Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Dalsai Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill.- Kadam Bhara, P.O. Tamdand, Dist. Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Panchayat, Directorate Of Panchayat, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) 3 - Jila Panchayat Korea, Through Its Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Rev.) Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) 5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil- Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.) 6 - The Forest Range Officer Forest Range, Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.) 7 - Mahesh Tiwari S/o Bholanath Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill. Podi, Tahsil- Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 2 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/s, order/s and direction/s to direct respondent authority thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 (annexure P/1) and further proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 10.3 Any other relief order or direction which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 wherein he has been served with a notice to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant/applicant without any enquiry which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to the fundamental rights of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State contended that enquiry has not been completed yet and during the course of argument learned State counsel presented a notice dated 06.10.2025 which has been served to the petitioner for his appearance before the concerned SDO(R) Baikunthpur, District- Korea on 16.10.2025. The document is taken on record and a copy of same is provided to the counsel for the petitioner also. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and 3 perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear that the enquiry against the petitioner is still pending before the concerned SDO(R). Annexure P/1 reveals that the notice has been issued to the petitioner that the charges levelled against him has been proved. On the one hand, learned State counsel contended that the enquiry against the petitioner is pending and on the other hand the petitioner is served with a notice stating that the charges levelled against him is proved. This act of the respondent is against norms of natural justice. 7. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby allowed and the notice dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the SDO(R), Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) and the SDO(R), Baikunthpur is directed to decide the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima