1 CGHC010178162022 2026:CGHC:28869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2495 of 2022 Krishna Kumar Verma @ Peelu Verma S/o Dashrath Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sail, P.S. And Tehsil- Kasdol, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kasdol, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Prahlad Jaiswal S/o Chhedilal Jaiswal Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Sail, P.S. And Tehsil- Kasdol, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Poulmi Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Choubey, Government Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.14 12:29:38 +0530 2 10/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 4.5.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 in Revenue Case no. 202010211300017A/89(9) dated 04.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the case on merits, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kasdol under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (in short “the Adhiniyam”) against respondent No.4 (Sarpanch) herein and based on the aforesaid complaint, the concerned SDO initiated proceedings. However, vide the impugned order dated 4.5.2022, the said proceedings were dropped. He submits that the concerned SDO has observed in the impugned order that the FIR had already been lodged against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC and further, that the alleged misappropriation did not pertain to the current tenure of the Sarpanch/respondent No.4. Learned counsel also submits that as per the impugned order, the SDO closed the proceedings by allowing an application filed by respondent No.4 for dismissal of the case, on the ground that the matter had not been decided within the mandatory period of 90 3 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice, without any application moved for extension of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SDO should have passed an appropriate order on merits, which was not done. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the concerned SDO has rightly passed the order. He further submits the work concerning the complaint did not fall within the tenure of the said Sarpanch and presently, he has completed his tenure. Furthermore, as the final order had not been within 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, the proceedings were properly dropped in accordance with law. He also submits that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed upon registration of the FIR against the Sarpanch. Needless to say, the outcome of the said criminal proceedings may be taken into consideration by the concerned authority, if any further orders are required to be passed in future. Lastly, he submits that even though, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4.5.2022, he ought to have filed an appeal before the concerned Collector, who is the competent authority. Having failed to exhaust this alternative remedy, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.5.2022 reveals that a 4 final order had not been passed within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, as provided under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. Further, an FIR has already been lodged against respondent No.4 (Sarpanch) at Police Station Kasdol under Section 420 of the IPC. In addition to this, the alleged misappropriation did not pertain to the tenure of the said Sarpanch and presently, he has already completed his tenure. 6. In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner cannot be redressed in the present petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the competent authority against the impugned order dated 4.5.2022. It is further clarified that if any grievance still survives, the petitioner reserves liberty to seek appropriate legal recourse before the competent forum against the said Sarpanch regarding the alleged misappropriation of Panchayat funds, in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay