1 2025:CGHC:61779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6645 of 2025 1 - Satyavati Sonwani W/o Mahendra Pratap Sonwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, (Naya Raipur) District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (R) Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad, Panchayat Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Show Cause Notice & Charge- Sheet Dated 15.12.2025 (P-1) issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer (R), Mahasamund. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.22 12:45:40 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings U/s. 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is initiated based on some complaint submitted before local MLA, which was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), therefore, the proceedings is initiated with bias. Perusal of Annexure P-1, would show that along with show cause notice, charge-sheet has also been issued. Earlier also, a show cause notice was issued on 21.11.2025 to which petitioner has already replied. 3. Perusal of earlier show cause notice would show that it also bears the allegation of irregularities of about Rs.2.00 Crores in the construction work and further the illegal operation of mining by the petitioner. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case when the allegations in the earlier show cause notice and the present show cause notice is one and same and petitioner has already submitted reply to the show cause notice pursuant thereto charge-sheet has been issued, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition at this stage is not maintainable. The authorities is yet to decide the allegation/charges levelled against petitioner based on the evidence, which is to be placed before the authorities by petitioner as also by the prosecution. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, writ petition at this stage against the issuance of show cause notice along with charge memo is premature. It is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram