1 / 2 2025:CGHC:60908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6506 of 2025 • Gopal Das Mahant S/o Late Shri Mangudas Mahant Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Kashigarh, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar Tahsil Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer Jila Janpad Panchayat, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Now District - Sakti (C.G.) 6. Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur Through The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 7. Sub Divisional Officer Rural Engineering Service, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 8. Gorelal Banjare S/o Shri Natthuram Banjare Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Kashigarh, Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 9. Balramgir Goswami The Then Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kashigarh, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 10.Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kashigarh, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) 11. Secretary Gram Panchayat Kashigarh, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 15/12/2025 1. Learned State counsel raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings initiated for recovery of the amount from petitioner who was the then Sarpanch of village panchayat Kashigarh, District Sakti which is appealable under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeals and Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short “Rules of 1995”). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the order is appealable, however, he has approached this Court on the ground that the SDO(R.) has not considered the order passed by the High Court in the earlier proceedings in WPC No. 1505/2023 in its entirety. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner has not disputed the objection raised by learned State counsel with regard to availability of alternate remedy of filing appeal under the Rules, of 1995. He also could not able to demonstrate that the order passed by the SDO(R.) is without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, accordingly it is dismissed, reserving liberty with the petitioner to file proceedings as provided under the Rules of 1995. 6. Registry is directed to return back certified copy of the documents enclosed along with writ petition retaining photocopy of the same in record. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE