1 2026:CGHC:18009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3667 of 2021 Sandhya Biswas W/o Shri Bhajan Biswas Aged About 38 Years Ex - Sarpanch Of Village Panchayat Dwarkapuri Janpad Panchayat Koilybeda, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattigarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Koilybeda District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the legality, validity, and propriety of the orders/awards dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 05 (Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Pakhanjur), whereby recovery of amounts totaling YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.21 17:00:34 +0530 2 ₹53,85,444/-, ₹10,730/-, and ₹2,262/- has been directed on the basis of a Social Audit conducted by the Gram Sabha under the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned awards/orders dated 13/08/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.05, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to quash the show cause notice dated 21-02-2019 (Annexure-P/6) issued by the Respondent No. 03. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated in law, being arbitrary, mala fide and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the complaint dated 10.01.2019 was motivated and based on false and frivolous allegations. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by the competent authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Koilybeda, who, after due consideration, recommended a recovery of ₹7,01,760/- only. However, subsequently, the Social 3 Audit Unit, without any lawful basis and ignoring the earlier inquiry report, conducted a social audit and arbitrarily enhanced the alleged recovery to ₹53,85,444/- along with other minor amounts, which is wholly unjustified and disproportionate. 3. It is further submitted that the social audit proceedings were conducted in a biased manner, as the Gram Sabha meeting was presided over by a person who is a political rival of the petitioner, thereby rendering the entire process tainted with malice. Moreover, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was she afforded any opportunity of hearing before fastening such huge liability upon her. The impugned orders dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 05 are thus in clear breach of audi alteram partem and deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even after issuance of notices by the prescribed authority, no final action has been taken in accordance with law. The petitioner has duly submitted her reply; however, the authorities have failed to consider the same and have proceeded mechanically on the basis of the Social Audit report. Such non-application of mind and inaction on part of the authorities renders the impugned action unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel as well as counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 submit that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law on the basis of 4 findings recorded during the Social Audit conducted under the provisions of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. It is contended that the Social Audit is a statutory mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability in implementation of the scheme, and the recovery has been directed on the basis of material irregularities and financial misappropriation detected therein. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the course of proceedings, and the allegations regarding violation of principles of natural justice are misconceived. The respondents assert that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions, and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. The impugned orders, being reasoned and based on factual findings, do not warrant any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 7. From a consideration of the submissions advanced, it transpires that pursuant to the interim order dated 09.09.2021, no further action has been taken by the prescribed authority. It is also evident that, in accordance with law, the prescribed authority is required to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam’) only after issuance of proper notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in 5 accordance with the provisions of Section 92(4) of the Adhiniyam, in the event of non-compliance. 8. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, at this stage, no adverse order has been passed against her warranting adjudication by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition does not survive for consideration on merits at this juncture. However, it is made clear that in the event any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the competent authority, she shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, including approaching this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, reserving the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh