1 2026:CGHC:19564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 71 of 2026 1 - Smt. Yamuna Kamde W/o Madhukar Kamde Aged About 41 Years R/o Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Korra, Janpad Panchayat Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, (Naya Raipur) District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction aside quashing proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, pursuant to the letter dated 29.09.2025 issued by the C.E.O./Respondent No. 4 and all consequential actions taken thereunder. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P/1), as the same has been issued without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice; 10.3 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience with cost of this petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that The petitioner is the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Korra, Janpad Panchayat Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), and assumed charge of the office on 23.04.2025. During her tenure, certain complaints were 3 received by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from vendors alleging non-payment for construction works, along with a complaint by the Panchayat Secretary alleging mental harassment. On the basis of these complaints, the CEO forwarded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for initiation of proceedings under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining that the alleged dues pertained to works executed during the tenure of the former Sarpanch. She requested that the requisite documents such as approvals, bills, vouchers, and completion certificates be furnished to enable lawful disbursement. Despite this, the authorities proceeded with action for her removal without adequately considering her reply. The petitioner has also contended that due to non-cooperation and absence of the Panchayat Secretary, statutory procedures could not be completed, resulting in delay in payments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and her reply was not duly considered. It is contended that there is no finding of wilful default, misconduct, or abuse of power, which are essential prerequisites for invoking Section 40(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that the alleged 4 non-payment relates to works executed during the tenure of the former Sarpanch, and the petitioner, upon assuming office, acted in accordance with law by insisting upon compliance with statutory requirements before releasing payments. Such conduct, being bona fide and in adherence to financial rules, cannot be construed as dereliction of duty. Learned counsel also submits that the delay in payments was primarily due to the negligence and non- cooperation of the Panchayat Secretary, who failed to discharge his statutory duties and remained absent, despite repeated complaints made by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to collusion between the former Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has acted in good faith and has released payments wherever due after due verification. 4. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is contended that pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the competent authority, i.e., the S.D.O. (Revenue), has already passed a final order dated 05.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sarpanch. It is further submitted that the said order dated 05.01.2026 has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the 5 petitioner before any competent forum in accordance with law. In absence of challenge to the removal order, the present petition, which indirectly seeks to question the same proceedings, is not maintainable. Learned counsel submit that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy to assail the order dated 05.01.2026 before the appropriate authority/forum as provided under the relevant provisions of law. Without availing such remedy, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is thus contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy against the order dated 05.01.2026 in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and submissions advanced, it is evident that during the pendency of the proceedings initiated under Section 40(a) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the competent authority, i.e., the S.D.O. (Revenue), has passed a final order dated 05.01.2026 removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. It is also not in dispute that the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner before any competent forum in accordance with law. 7. In view of the subsequent development, the primary challenge raised in the present petition to the initiation of proceedings and 6 issuance of notice pales into insignificance, inasmuch as a final order has already been passed. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2026 and consequential proceedings, has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy available under the relevant provisions of law. 8. It is well settled that when an effective alternative remedy is available, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ordinarily refrains from entertaining the petition, particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved and a statutory forum is available for redressal. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to avail the alternative remedy available under the law. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority by filing appropriate proceedings challenging the order dated 05.01.2026 as well as the ancillary proceedings in which orders have been passed against her. The petitioner is further directed to file such proceedings along with an application for interim relief/stay within a period of 30 days from today. 10. It is further directed that till the filing of the interim application by the petitioner before the competent authority, the interim order passed by this Court on 09.01.2026 shall remain in operation. Thereafter, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the interim application, in 7 accordance with law, without being influenced by the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by this Court. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. The office is directed to return the certified copy of the order dated 05.01.2026 to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same on record. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge