1 CGHC010296512026 2026:CGHC:34443-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 43 of 2026 1 - Itwari Ram Sahu S/o Late Aaju Ram Sahu, Aged About 62 Years Ex -Up- Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat, Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Satyendra Verma S/o Rambhajan Verma, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Agriculture 3 - Bhawat Verma S/o Late Dhulgan Verma Aged About 64 Years Occupation Agriculture 4 - Amar Verma S/o Dauwa Ram Verma Aged About 50 Years Occupation Agriculture 5 - Nemraj Verma S/o Late Sita Ram Verma, Aged About 46 Years 6 - Manoj Verma S/o Beerbal Verma, Aged About 44 Years 7 - Lakshya Kumar Verma S/o Chatur Prasad Verma, Aged About 34 Years 8 - Bharat Verma S/o Bhagwat Verma, Aged About 32 Years Petitioner No. 2 to 8 all are R/o Village Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 – The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, O>ce Of Collectorate Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive O>cer, Jila Panchayat Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Ashok Verma, Secretary As Additional Charge Of Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1 Heard Mr. Amitabh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for the following relief(s): “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direct therein to respondents to submit all concerned records before this Hon'ble Court for kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by which quash/set-aside the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 23/09/2024 passed by respondent No.3. Chief Executive O-cer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham (C.G.) 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems 4t and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioners are that they are resident of village Sukhatal, District Kabirdham. Respondent No. 8 is one of the Panch of Gram Panchayat, Sukhtal. The respondent No.4 is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bodhaikunda, Janpad Panchayat Kawardha, District Panchayat Kabirdham who has been given the additional charge of post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Sukhatal, 3 District Kabirdham by impugned order No. /2128/Panchayat/Sachiv Stha./2024, Kabirdham dated order dated 23.09.2024 issued by the Chief Executive O>cer, District Panchayat, Kabirdham. 4 Mr. Amitabh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the policy of State/respondent No.1 is not to post the Secretary of Gram Panchayat at his home-village Panchayat to avoid any unfair work and to keep transparency regarding which there is a circular bearing No. Pancha 314/PGVV/2009/1497 Raipur dated 16.09.2009, issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Mrs. Maina Verma, mother of the respondent No.4 had participated in election of Gram Panchayat Sukhatal and she got defeated by present Sarpanch namely Neha Verma by 130 votes. Due to above mentioned reason, the respondent No.4 does not work promptly and smoothly, rather creates hurdles in the work of the Panchayat. Due to defeat of his mother to take revenge, the respondent No.4 i.e. creates hurdle in work and proceedings of Gram Panchayat. The respondent No.4 do not appear in the meetings while he himself calls the meetings. The petitioners and members of Gram Panchayat made several complaints to respondent No.2 and 3, but no action has been taken by them. The present Sarpanch had preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 5368/2026 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2026. 5 Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the additional charge entrusted to respondent No. 4 has been assigned solely on account of administrative exigency and in the interest of ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the Panchayat administration. It is contended that the competent authority has exercised its 4 administrative discretion in accordance with law and that no statutory provision has been violated in assigning such additional charge. It is further submitted that the petitioners are neither persons aggrieved by the impugned order nor do they possess any vested or enforceable legal right to question the posting or assignment of additional charge to a Panchayat Secretary. In the absence of infringement of any legal or fundamental right, the present writ petition is not maintainable at their instance. Mr. Bhaduri further submits that the petition is nothing but an attempt to convert a personal and political rivalry into a public law dispute by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Elaborating the said contention, Mr. Bhaduri submits that the present Sarpanch, Smt. Neha Verma, is the wife of petitioner No. 8 and the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 3, which clearly demonstrates that the dispute has its genesis in local political diDerences rather than any genuine public grievance. According to him, the petition has been instituted with an ulterior motive to settle political scores and to interfere with the administrative decisions of the competent authority. The order dated 23.09.2024 was challenged by Smt. Neha Verma before a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5368/2026, which stood dismissed on 16.07.2026. It is thus submitted that the petition lacks bona 4des, is actuated by political vendetta, and does not involve any element of public interest or violation of any legal right warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6 At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the impugned order merely assigns additional charge of the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Sukhatal to respondent No.4. The power to post or assign additional charge to a Panchayat Secretary is an administrative function vested in 5 the competent authority. Unless the order is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or violative of any enforceable legal right of the petitioner, ordinarily no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are admittedly residents of the village. They neither claim to be applicants for the said post nor do they assert infringement of any personal or legal right. Their grievance essentially rests on the allegation that respondent No.4 is not functioning fairly because of political rivalry arising out of the Panchayat election. Such allegations are factual in nature and cannot, by themselves, confer locus standi upon the petitioners to challenge an order of posting passed by the competent authority. 7 It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily invoked by a person whose legal or fundamental right has been infringed. A stranger or a person having only a remote or indirect interest cannot maintain a writ petition questioning an administrative order relating to service matters. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal injury suDered by them or any statutory right violated by the impugned order. Consequently, they have no locus standi to maintain the present petition. 8 We also End that the challenge is founded substantially on allegations of political rivalry between the family members of respondent No.4 and the present Sarpanch-Neha Verma. This Court also Ends considerable substance in the objection raised by the State regarding the bona 4des of the present proceedings. It is not disputed that the present Sarpanch, Smt. Neha Verma, had earlier challenged the very same order dated 23.09.2024 by Eling WPS No.5368 of 2026, which came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.07.2026. The present 6 petition has now been instituted by persons closely related to the said Sarpanch, i.e. the petitioner No.8 being her husband and petitioner No.3 being her father-in-law. The sequence of events unmistakably indicates that the present proceedings are an indirect attempt to achieve what could not be secured in the earlier litigation. Such proxy litigation deserves to be deprecated. 9 This Court also cannot lose sight of the manner in which the present writ petition has been instituted. Though several villagers have been arrayed as petitioners, the surrounding circumstances unmistakably indicate that their impleadment is merely a device to create an impression that the grievance is shared by the villagers at large. In substance, the dispute emanates from the political diDerences between the present Sarpanch- Neha Verma, the petitioner No. 3, 8 and the respondent No.4. The present petition has been instituted by the husband and father-in-law of the present Sarpanch along with certain other villagers, evidently to camouFage the real nature of the dispute and to project it as a collective public grievance. Mere arraying of other villagers as co-petitioners cannot confer locus standi where no enforceable legal right is shown to have been infringed, nor can it alter the essentially personal and politically motivated character of the litigation. This Court is, therefore, satisEed that the present proceedings are a proxy challenge to the same administrative order under the guise of a representative action, amounting to an abuse of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The present petition, Eled by certain villagers seeking substantially the same relief, appears to be an indirect attempt to reopen an issue which has already been adjudicated. Such a course cannot be countenanced. 7 10 The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be permitted to be invoked for ventilating political or personal disputes under the guise of public interest or public cause. The petitioners have failed to establish either any enforceable right or any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the administrative order impugned herein. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, not maintainable for want of locus standi, and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 11 Since the petition has been Eled without any legal foundation and amounts to an abuse of the process of law by seeking to challenge an administrative order without any enforceable right, we deem it appropriate to direct forfeiture of the security amount deposited by the petitioners at the time of institution of the writ petition. 12 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The security amount deposited by the petitioners stand forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.07 11:57:35 +0530