IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. $28Q [2003 PETITIONER Gurudayal, S / o. Rangnath Sahu, Aged about 4O years Q “‘K‘ Q99. Panchayat Karmi/ Secretory, [ i $0 a“ 3\ xx“¢‘\g @ :y " / Gram Panchayat Kaghéhda “.5. :6; \w... Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Tahsil Nawagarh, District - VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat8z, Social Welfare Dept. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Additional Collector Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) P3. ‘Deogun Yadav, Sarpanch Gram Panchayt Kachanda Rameshwar Yadav Up—Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kachanda ' ‘ Nanki Babu, Panch Gram Panchayat Kachanda, No. 3,4 85 5 R/o. Vill. Kachanda, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjg'r—Champa (C.G) /’ /. WRIT PETITION UIA 226(2é7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS , OF THE PETITIONER As stated above in the cause title. H IGH COURT OF: CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU R Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION NO.1802 OF 2003 PE l'I'lilONERS Devgun Yadav & Another VersuS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Present :— Shri Sunii Sah‘u, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P,K. Bhaduri, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for respondents No.6 & 7, . C)NDENTS_ AND WRIT PETITION NO.3288 OF 2003 P IEI’ITLQBEL? Gurudayai Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) BL&PQEQEELS. Ii’leraent :« Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No.3 & 4. ORDER @AL) r (Passed on this 7‘“ day or September, 2010) WP. Nos. 1802 & 3288 of>2003 involve the same question of law & fac '5 and, as such, they are being considered and decided by this common order. By these petitions, the petitioners, who are Sarpanch, Upsarpanoh and Panchayat Karmi, respectively of Gram Panchayat— Kachanda, seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 22/04/2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir—Champa in Appeal No.2 A—89 (15) 2002-2003 \ :‘ra A‘. (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Devgun Yadav & Others) whereby and whereunder the Additional Collector directed to recover the amount from the petitioners on the ground that they had committed certain itlegalities and irreguiarities in various construction activities. ‘The‘ facts, in brief, for disposal of these petitions, are that on account of certain complaints against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation of puhiic exchequer, the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat — Kachanda resolved to recover the amount from the petitioners. On the basis of‘said resolution, enquiry was conducted and thereafter, notice was issued by the Collector on 20/08/2002. In response to the said notice, the petitioners submitted their t response denying the allegations leveled against them. After receipt of the reply, the Collector passed the impugned order of recovery. Thus, these petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that the learned Additional Collector without appreciating the reply . submitted by the petitioners in its true perspective and without enquirlng the matter properly asto whether the petitioners have committed the alleged irregularities and without going through the certairr'Tecords of the Gram Panchayat, wrongly passed the impugned order, which is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. i Even, the Additional Collector has not recorded any cogent and sufficient reason for passing the impugned order. In fact, the petitioners have not committed any misappropriation of public exchequer. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners without availing the appropriate remedy the petitioners straightaway approached this Court, thus, the writ .tl. i petitions are not maintainable and the same may be dismissed on this count alone‘ ‘ With regard to the aforesaid objection of availabiiity of atatutory forum is concerned, it is weil settied principle of law that it is the judicious discretion of the Court, having regard to the facts situation of the oases to entertain the. writ petitions, even if eiatutory alternative remedy is available. In the oases on hand, the present w rit petitions were filed on 18/06/2003 & 10/10/2003, reepeotively ' and today at this stage, throwing the petitions on the ground of availability of statutory remedy would not be jost and proper. Thus, ‘ the contention of the State counsel is rejected. Even otherwise, the ‘ Additional Collector while passing the impUgned order of recovery from the petitioners has not followed the due process of law by recording the statement of witnesses and by going through the records of Gram Panchayat, eto Notioe was issued on 20/08/2002 after holding that the petitioners were personally liable for loss caused to the Gram Panohayat and, as such, why said amount may not be recovered from them, They were asked to appear before the Collector on 03/09/2002 to put orward their respective cases. This car‘inot be held as a show cause notice. Dnce it has been decided that the petitioners were, liabte to pay the loss of amount to the effect that why should the said amount may not be recovered from’ them, cannot be heid as show cause notice. ln Durgesh Prasad Sinha vt State of Chhattisgarh & Others’, this Court had an occasion to defihe the word ‘show cause notioe’ as under '. (S) No‘3012/2009 (07/08/2009) \K ’\\\ t l f , “11. ‘Show cause notice’ implies opportunity of submitting an explanation to a clear unambiguous noiice. Thus‘ in the facts of the case an information was brought in the knowledge of the petitioners without giving show cause notice to file response to prove ge’nuineness or bona fide of the documents.” in the cases on hand, indisputably, no opportunity of hearing by‘ issuing show cause notice was granted to the petitioners. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. ln the result, the impugned order dated 22/04/2003 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and both the writ petitions are allowed. However liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law and pass reasoned order protecting the , finance ofthe Gram Panchayat—Kachanda. There shall be no order asto costs. ‘ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \ Gowri ‘