1 2025:CGHC:54152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on : 02.09.2025 Order delivered on : 06.11.2025 WPC No. 2923 of 2025 1 - Ramnath Sidar S/o Late Arvind Sidar Aged About 45 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kamla Kishore Nirala W/o Kishore Nirala Aged About 46 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Smt Geeta Mahendra Thawait W/o Late Late Govind Thawait Aged About 50 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sarita Shankar Chandra W/o Shankar Chandra Aged About 38 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sanjeeta Singh Sarita W/o Vijay Gopal Aged About 50 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Shubham Bajpayee S/o Late Chandra Prakash Bajpayee Aged About 32 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Shanti Laxman Malakar W/o Laxman Malakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ..... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 4 - Banti Kesharwani R/o Ward No. 4, Raigarh Road Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. RS Marhas, Addl AG. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Syed Isshadil Ali, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma C A V Order 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10.RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 05-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to do the work as Parshad/councilors. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 05-06- 2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioners have been removed from the post of Councilor. The petitioners are elected parshad/councilors. On the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.3, one page notice was served to the petitioners, 3 but neither any documents related to the complaint supplied to the petitioners nor any preliminary enquiry were conducted, therefore, the petitioners were not able to file any kind of reply in respect of the said complaint or any preliminary enquiry as no specific allegations was mentioned in the notice. As per Section 41 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 power is given to the Collector for removal of elected councilor under sub-section 1(a) of the said act, but proviso clause specifies that the Collector shall not pass any order of removal unless such councilor has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing/showing cause. Hence, petitioners have came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that the petitioners who are Corporators of the Municipal Council, Sarangarh Bilaigarh were involved in a gross misconduct of allotment of four plots to various persons without following mandatory provisions contained under the Act of 1961. The President of the Council as well as the Corporators did not adhere to the mandatory provisions of issuing public notification, open bidding from the interested persons as well as seeking permission from the State Government before alienating the four plots in favour of different persons. Hence, the respondent/Collector being competent authority under the Act of 1961, has held the petitioners, who Corporators of the Municipal Council, Sarangarh Bilaigarh, guilty 4 for misconduct and has removed them from the said post under Section 41(3) of the Act of 1961. Learned counsel further contended that after following due process of law and after giving full opportunity of hearing the petitioners have been held responsible for the alleged misconduct and have rightly been removed from the said post. The order impugned is appealable under Section 41(4) of the Act of 1961, wherein, statutory and efficacious remedy of appeal has been prescribed to file an appeal before the State Government. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners have raised a ground that they have not been supplied with necessary documents and, therefore, they could not file the suitable reply in the proceedings. The order-sheet dated 28/05/2025 (Page no. 27 of the writ petition) clearly reflects that the competent authority has directed supply of material documents to the respondents. A bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 04/06/2025 also reflects that no reply has been filed, therefore, opportunity of filing reply has been closed. In between 28/05/2025 and 04/06/2025 the petitioners moved an application through their counsel for obtaining certified copies of the documents, this was so, because the documents were large in number for which the petitioners were required to move an application for obtaining the certified copies. However, the petitioners intimated copying section through Junior Advocate that they are not interested in taking the copy of the documents 5 as needed earlier. On account of the aforesaid reasons the petitioners did not take the copy and neither did they submit any reply before the competent authority during the proceedings initiated against them. The petitioners themselves have shown disinterest in obtaining the certified copy of the necessary documents for which the competent authority cannot be held responsible. The petitioners are themselves responsible for their own act. It is crystal-clear that from the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners that the petitioners never wanted to obtain the certified copies of the documents which they purportedly demanded. It is also evident that the competent authority has afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and has duly complied with the principles of natural justice while passing the order impugned. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and no rights of the petitioners have been infringed. The instant petition being vague and baseless deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 5. In case of Institute of Chartered Accounts of India versus L.K. Ratna and Others, AIR 1987 SC 71, the Apex Court has held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not undo the violation of natural justice in the first stage. A defect of natural justice existing in the trial stage, cannot be cured by giving an opportunity of hearing at the appellate stage. 6 6. Perusal of Annexure P-2 shows that based on a complaint made by respondent No.4/Banti Kesharwani, on 30.05.2025 respondent/Additional Collector has issued notice to the petitioners as prima facie the Additional Collector has found that allegations levelled against the petitioners by respondent No.4 in the complaint is correct, therefore, sought for reply of the petitioners, but in the said notice there is no mention about which type of complaint made by respondent No.4 against the petitioners before the Additional Collector. 7. Perusal of the Annexure P-1 reveals that case was fixed on 30.04.2025 and, thereafter, fixed for reply on 14.05.2025 and, thereafter, fixed for hearing on 28.05.2025 and on 28.05.2025 matter was fixed on 04.06.2025 mentioning that “nLrkost dh izfr miyC/k djk;k tk;sA” but there is no mention that the documents has been supplied/provided to the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of the complaint including all the relevant documents and, thereafter, date of appearance of the petitioners was fixed on 07.06.2025. On 04.05.2025, without providing the documents or complaint to the petitioners, closed the opportunity to file the reply by the petitioners, hence, how it is possible that without having relevant documents or complaint, petitioners can file the reply. Thereafter, on 05.06.2025 impugned order has been passed by the respondent/Additional Collector. In the Annexure P-7 annexed 7 alongwith rejoinder of petitioner filed on 02.09.2025, it is specifically mentioned that “udy vkosnu U;k;ky; vfrfjDr dysDVj ftyk lkjax<+&fHkykbZx<+ ls vkt fnukad 29-08-2025 rd vizkIr gksus rFkk vkosnd ds udy izkIr djus gsrq u vkus ds dkj.k udy iznk; ugha fd;k tk ldkA” however, it is clear from the record that date of appearance has been given to the petitioner on 07.06.2025 for obtaining the copy, then, why the petitioners will be appeared before 07.06.2025. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that when the petitioners have not been provided the copy of complaint or relevant documents and further there is no mention about which type of complaint made by respondent No.4 against the petitioners before the Additional Collector and impugned order has been passed, therefore, it is against the the norms of natural justice and same has not been cured at later stage, when same has not been provided at the initial stage. 9. For the foregoing discussion/observation, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 (Page No.29 of Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. 10. Matter is remanded back to the concerned Additional Collector to adjudicate the matter afresh, expeditiously, strictly in accordance with relevant rule/law/regulation, after giving sufficient/proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, providing/supplying the 8 relevant documents and sufficient time for filing of the reply. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.