1 2026:CGHC:22850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1398 of 2022 Smt. Devki Chakradhari W/o Shri Ramu Singh Chakradhari, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation House Wife, Ex Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Datrengi, Janpad Panchayat Palari, R/o Village And Post Datrengi, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Balodabajar District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balodabajar District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Palari, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.16 16:39:30 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The petitioner challenges the recovery order dated 4.2.2022 for Rs.30,06,539/-, passed by Respondent No.3- Sub Divisional Officer(R), Balodabajar, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara (CG). The petitioner contends that the order was passed without due inquiry and Respondent No.3 acted without jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (in short “the Act”). Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that Section 89 of the Act is the sole provision governing adjudication of liability and that the power to conduct such enquiry is vested exclusively in the Collector (prescribed authority). Since the mandatory procedure of adjudication was bypassed in favour of recovery proceedings, the order suffers from a manifest legal error. Hence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said order. 2. By way of this Petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) with complete proceedings of Revenue Case No. 202012210200030/92-A/89/2020-21 (Annexure P-2) pending before SDO Revenue Balodabajar, District Balodabojar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to call for the record from the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balodabajar with Inquiry report if any for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 3. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Datrengi, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh (District Balodabazar), elected in 2015. After a 2019 news report regarding sand mining/royalty irregularities, an enquiry committee alleged that Rs.30,06,539/- was mismanaged by the Panchayat. Based solely on the enquiry, respondent No.4 communicated respondent No.3 {SDO(R)} to recover the amount from the petitioner. A recovery case was registered in 2020 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that Section 92 of the Act (Recovery) was invoked prematurely and illegally. The petitioner filed a reply and also filed an application on 18.10.2021 challenging the maintainability of recovery proceedings. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that an enquiry and adjudication under Section 89 of the Act must be completed as prerequisite before any recovery execution under Section 92 can commence. On 4.2.2022, the Presiding Officer dismissed this plea without considering that no formal order of liability had been passed. The concerned SDO(R) has now ordered the petitioner to deposit the amount or face 30 days in civil jail, despite lack of a proper hearing or witness statements. Hence, this Petition. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery order suffers from non-application of mind, denial of opportunity of hearing, and are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. This Court in a similar matter Shukhi Ram Yadu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No. 3794 of 2018 decided on 25.9.2025) has quashed the recovery proceeding. He lastly submits that the impugned recovery order be quashed and set aside in the present petition as well. 5. Conversely, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition. He submits that in the present case, a proper enquiry has been conducted and a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by the concerned Janpad Panchayat. However, as the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry team, she has waived her rights and now cannot claim a breach of principles of natural justice. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. The contention of the respondents that audit and scrutiny were conducted and that the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing cannot cure the foundational defect of non-compliance with Section 89. An adjudication fixing liability is a sine qua non before any recovery can be ordered. Affording an opportunity of hearing cannot substitute the initial requirement of notice and inquiry by the prescribed authority. 5 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that in a similarly situated case Shukhi Ram Yadu (supra), this Court has granted relief to the petitioners therein, the impugned recovery order is quashed/set aside. The respondents are, however, at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, by initiating proceedings under Section 89 of the Act, 1993, after issue notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Consequently, the Petition succeeds and is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay