PUNITA KUMHAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010340962026 2026:CGHC:38978
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
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:-

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