1 CGHC010340962026 2026:CGHC:38978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4478 of 2026 1 - Punita Kumhar D/o Shri Nanhuram Kumhar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kamrid Post Office- Tanaud, Police Station And Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchyat And Rual Development Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) 4 - Jagatram Gond S/o Lage Shri Govindram Gond R/o Village Kamrid Post Office- Tanaud, Police Station And Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records connected with the case for the perusal of the case by the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 (ANNEXURE P-8) passed by the respondent no. 3. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of the Case no. 202607061100022/B-121/2024-25 registered against the petitioner. 10.4 That, such other relief's as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be also granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted by the concerned authority was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law and that the petitioner was not afforded a proper and effective opportunity to place his case before the authority concerned. He further submits that the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 has been passed without duly considering the material facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 3 09.07.2026 by preferring an appeal before the concerned Collector. He further submits that, from a perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record, it is evident that the controversy involves various disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of the relevant material and evidence and, therefore, the same can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the competent appellate authority, namely, the concerned Collector. It is, accordingly, contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.07.2026, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, has passed an order fastening liability upon the petitioner, who was serving as Sarpanch at the relevant point of time, on the basis of a complaint made by one Jagatram Gond, who is also stated to be an erstwhile Sarpanch. The complaint pertains to an alleged non-payment of an amount of Rs.1,42,724/- in respect of certain work stated to have been executed during the relevant tenure. The impugned order has been passed in proceedings initiated by the concerned authority on the basis of the aforesaid complaint. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular, having regard to the fact that proceedings have been 4 initiated by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Sections 89/92 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, wherein liability has been fastened upon the petitioner, who was the erstwhile Sarpanch, on the basis of a complaint made by another former Sarpanch, namely, Jagatram Gond, this Court is of the considered view that the issues raised by the petitioner require examination by the competent appellate authority. Since the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the concerned Collector and the controversy also involves disputed questions of fact requiring proper appreciation of the material on record, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to approach the concerned appellate authority by filing an appropriate appeal against the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the concerned appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. The appellate authority shall also consider the question of limitation, if any, and the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if filed, and shall pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. The concerned appellate authority shall call for and examine the relevant records and shall consider the grounds and submissions raised by the petitioner before this 5 Court, insofar as they are permissible in law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 8. The petitioner is further directed to file a copy of the present writ petition along with a copy of this order before the concerned appellate authority for proper appreciation of the grievance raised by him. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking interim relief/stay along with the appeal. In the event such an interim application is filed, the concerned appellate authority shall consider and decide the same, as a first priority, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the appeal and the interim application. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent appellate authority. 9. Till 30 days no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat