1 2026:CGHC:14047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4103 of 2021 1 - Kavisharam Verma S/o Shri Nakul Singh Verma, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village And Post- Aamandula, Police Station And Tahsil- Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District-Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)sakti, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsilder Malkharoda, Tahsil-Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District-Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District-Janjgir Champa 5 - Smt. Priyanka Abhimanyu Gabel W/o Shri Abhimanyu Gabel, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Aamandula, Janpad Panchayat VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District-Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 6 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Aamandula, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.03.2026 1. The present petition is filed for direction by the Hon'ble Court to the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to initiate the proceeding under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 against the Respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No. 3 on 09.05.2021 stating that Respondent No. 5 and 6 had illegally cut down green trees of Babul, Reewa and Kauha (Arjun) standing on Government land of village Aamandula without permission from the competent authority. It was specifically mentioned that about 20 green trees situated at Sirsabhata on the embankment of Naya Talab had been cut within 15 days and on the same day i.e. 09.05.2021 about 30 trees standing on the road connecting Mandibhata along with other small trees were also cut. 3 It was further stated that in the previous year also Respondent No. 5 had got more than 100 green trees cut and sold. On the said application Respondent No. 3 directed the Patwari and Kotwar to conduct a spot inspection on 09.05.2021. During the inspection Mauka Panchnama was prepared wherein the persons present stated that Respondent No. 5 had got the trees cut. It was found that 29 Babul trees behind the village Mandi were cut. Trees of Babul, Arjun and Reewa near Naya Talab were missing. And 23 Babul trees near the Gauthan were found cut. The petitioner also submitted photographs of the freshly cut trees. The husband of Respondent No. 5 took 9 Babul trees on Supurdnama on the same day. Thereafter on 19.05.2021 the petitioner submitted another application before Respondent No. 1 stating that the cut trees had been distributed to 41 persons and the logs were kept near their houses. It was also stated that machines belonging to Krishna Kumar and Daulat Ram Yadav were used. On 01.06.2021 the Up-Sarpanch and Panchas along with villagers submitted a complaint before Respondent No. 1 to 4 and the officer-in-charge of Police Station Malkharoda alleging that Respondent No. 5 and 6 had cut and sold trees on various dates. Pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted and Panchnama dated 12.05.2021 was prepared bearing signatures of Panchas. However Respondent No. 5 along with her husband Abhimanyu Gabel and Shiv Kumar threatened the Panchas. Thereafter the petitioner submitted further applications dated 09.07.2021 and 26.07.2021 before 4 Respondent No. 1 and 2 seeking action under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam against Respondent No. 5 and 6. But despite repeated complaints and availability of evidence no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Hence this petition. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case for it's kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 & 2 to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam against the Respondent No. 5. 10.3 That any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on record cogent and reliable evidence including the Mauka Panchnama, Supurdnama and photographs (Annexure P-2), which clearly establish that Respondent No. 5 and 6 have illegally cut down green trees standing on Government land, thereby acting against public interest and causing serious environmental damage. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations made by the petitioner before Respondent No. 1 and 2 along with supporting documents, no 5 action has been taken against Respondent No. 5 and 6, which reflects gross inaction and failure to discharge statutory duties on the part of the authorities. It is also submitted that such illegal cutting of green trees is in clear violation of Government policies promoting afforestation within Gram Panchayat areas and amounts to misconduct under Section 40 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, thereby making Respondent No. 5 and 6 liable for appropriate action in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the inaction of Respondent No. 1 and 2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and indicative of bias, which warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, and therefore it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to take action against Respondent No. 5 and 6 and to protect public property and environment. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the concerned Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat by filing an appropriate application before the said authority. It is further submitted that thereafter, if so required, the petitioner may also approach the concerned Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat by submitting an appropriate representation. Without availing the aforesaid statutory remedy and directly invoking writ jurisdiction, the present petition is not maintainable. 6 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Leelavathi N. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2253 has observed as under:- “35. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, has held as under: 37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 7 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” 7. Considering the aforesaid submission and in view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority in accordance with law. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha