1 / 5 2025:CGHC:18530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 240 of 2018 1 - Anushka Social Welfare Society Durg, Through Its Secretary, Ravindu Singh, S/o Amarnath, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No. 55, Dixit Colony, Kosa Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Durg District Durg Chhatisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) 2 / 5 Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order Annexure P-1 dated 03/08/2017 passed by the Collector and the order dated 16/08/2017 issued by the respondent No.3, by which, vide Annexure P-1, the Collector has directed the recovery of Rs.4 lacs from the petitioner and vide Annexure P-2, the respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation has directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs. 4 lacs as directed by the Collector. 2. The order Annexure P-1 has been passed by the Collector by which the Collector has fixed liabilities & found responsible for the death of one Late Mohit Kumar Yadav. The petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of public toilet and during the construction of public toilet, one Mohit Kumar Yadav S/o Manharan Yadav aged about two and half years fell down in the pit and died, which was prepared for raising pillars for the construction of the public toilet. For the said incident, the Collector by referring RBC 6-4 fixed the liability upon the petitioner/Contractor and directed recovery of Rs. 4 lacs for payment of said amount to the family members of the deceased, who fell down in the said pit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order Annexure P-1 was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition bearing WPC No.2372/2017, which was disposed of vide order 31/08/2017 directing the Municipal Corporation to decide the representation which was submitted before it. Pursuance to the said order, the Municipal Corporation vide order 3 / 5 dated 05/10/2017, by a non-speaking order, decided the said representation directing the petitioner to deposit the same reiterating the order of the Collector. He submits that after rejection of the representation by the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition questioning the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Commissioner, by which, the Commissioner has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 4 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order dated 03/08/2017, the Collector has not observed the principles of natural justice, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded and even no explanation has been sought from the petitioner and no enquiry has been made when the liability has been fixed upon the petitioner who was the Contractor constructing the public toilet which was awarded to him by the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that regarding the said incident, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 11/07/2017 and a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner vide Crime No.457/2017 by the Police Station Durg, which was resulted in an acquittal by a judgment dated 25/01/2024 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. He further submits that amount as directed to be recovered from the petitioner has already been recovered by the Municipal Corporation. The impugned order which has been passed by the Collector is contrary to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same deserved to be quashed. 4 / 5 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the construction was being undertaken by the petitioner as a Contractor and because of his negligence, the incident occurred and two and half years child died as he fell down in the said pit which was being constructed by the petitioner, hence, the impugned order is just and proper as the amount has been sanctioned by the Collector for payment to the victim’s family. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 03/08/2017, by which, the Collector has fixed the liability upon the petitioner and directed recovery of Rs.4 lacs from the present petitioner for payment of the said amount to the victim’s family whose child died when he fell down in the pit constructed by the petitioner while construction the public toilet as awarded by the Municipal Corporation. 6. In appears from the order Annexure P-1 that the Collector has taken a decision to recover the said amount from the present petitioner only because the petitioner was constructing the same as a Contractor and there was no enquiry or explanation sought from the petitioner and there is no finding that the petitioner was responsible because of his negligent act. The respondents have failed to produce any document showing that any explanation was sought from the petitioner or any enquiry was conducted to fix the liability and responsibility over the petitioner. Hence, it is very clear that the order Annexure P-1 is an order by which, the Collector has directed the recovery an amount of Rs.4 lacs for payment of victim’s family is absolutely in violation of the 5 / 5 principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order of the Collector deserves to be and is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the same be returned back to the petitioner within a period of 30 days. 7. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the Collector or the Municipal Corporation is at liberty to enquire the matter a fresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order, if so advised. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep