SAROJ SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010229992021 2026:CGHC:44242
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3630 of 2021
SHYNA
AJAY
Saroj Sahu S/o Shri Baijnath Prasad Sahu, Aged About 54 Years R/o
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.10.16
14:35:25 +0530
Mahamaya Chowk, Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Incident Commander,
Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
4 - The Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Through The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)

2
WPC No. 3669 of 2021
Virendra Chourasia S/o Late Shri Nanku Prasad Chourasia, Aged
About 55 Years, Proprietor Chourasia Marriage Garden, Ring Road,
R/o Mayapur Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Cum District Magistrate Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Incident Commander
Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, Through The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3995 of 2021
Prakash Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramnath Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o
Near Hanuman Mandir, Bilaspur Chowk Ambikapur, District - Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus

3
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary General
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Incident Commander,
Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
4 - The Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Through - The
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Vishal Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/
:
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate
State
For Respondent/
:
Mr. Anand Pandey, Advocate on behalf of
Municipal
Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
Corporation
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

13/10/2026

1.
Since common questions of fact and grievance arise in this
batch of writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of
by this common order, so as to avoid conflicting or anomalous

4
findings by this Court.
2.
In sum and substance, all the writ petitioners have prayed for the
same reliefs. For the sake of convenience, the reliefs claims in
WPC No.3630/2021 is reproduced below :
10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare
that the order dated 04.07.21 (Annexure P-1) and
12.07.21 (Annexure P-2) are illegal, bad in law and
without jurisdiction.
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash
the order dated 04.07.21 (Annexure P-1) and 12.07.21
(Annexure P-2).
10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.
3.
Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are the marriage between
Harsh Sahu (son of petitioner - Saroj Sahu) and the daughter of
petitioner - Prakash Sahu, was solemnized on 02.07.2021 at
Chourasia Marriage Garden, Ambikapur. Petitioner No. 1-
Virendra Chourasia, is the proprietor of the said marriage
garden. It was alleged that the marriage ceremony was attended
by a gathering exceeding 50 persons, purportedly in violation of
the prescribed COVID-19 protocol. During the subsistence of the
pandemic, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
had issued an order dated 29.04.2021 in the exercise of powers
under Section 6 (2) (i) and Section 10 (2) (i) of the Disaster
Management Act 2005 (in short “the Act of 2005”) . The said
order was issued along with an advisory dated 25.04.2021 for
immediate implementation across all States and Union

5
Territories, based on assessment of the prevailing situation, up
to 31.05.2021. In the State of Chhattisgarh, all Collectors-cum-
District Magistrates were duly authorized under the provisions of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (in short “the Act of 1897”) and
the Act of 2005, to declare containment zones. In pursuance
thereof, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Surguja
(Respondent No. 2), declared District Surguja as a containment
zone. Under the said declaration, notifications specifying certain
restrictions and relaxations were issued from time to time. In
continuation of earlier Notifications, Respondent No. 2 issued a
Notification dated 28.05.2021. Among other conditions, the
regulations stipulated that marriage functions must strictly
adhere to COVID-19 protocols and the directives prescribed by
the Government of India, which capped the maximum
permissible attendance at 50 persons and mandated that all
attendees undergo COVID-19 testing. On the strength of the
aforesaid Notifications, the Naib Tehsildar submitted a report to
Police Station Ambikapur alleging that a marriage function had
taken place on 02.07.2021 at Chourasia Marriage Garden
involving a gathering of about 1,000 persons. On the basis of the
said report, an First Information Report (FIR) was registered
against the petitioners for offenses punishable under Sections
188 and 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of
the Act of 1897. Concurrently, Respondent No. 3 (Sub-
Divisional Magistrate-cum-Incident Commander) concluded that
the petitioners had committed a breach of the Notification dated

6
28.05.2021. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 passed an
administrative order imposing penalties as under:
• Petitioner (Saroj Sahu): Rs.2,37,500/-
• Petitioner (Prakash Sahu): Rs.2,37,500/-
• Petitioner (Virendra Chourasia, Garden Owner):
Rs.4,75,000/-
4. The petitioners were directed to deposit the said penalty
amounts with Respondent No. 4 (Municipal Corporation,
Ambikapur). Being aggrieved by the impugned orders of
penalty, which are illegal, arbitrary and passed without any
authority or jurisdiction in law, the petitioners have preferred the
instant petitions before this Court challenging the same. An
interim stay was also granted on the recovery in favour of
petitioners Saroj Sahu and Prakash Sahu, whereas petitioner
Virendra Chourasia deposited the fine under protest. Hence,
these Petitions.
5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for all
the petitioners along with Mr. Vishal Sahu, Advocate, submits
that the action taken against the petitioners is directly contrary to
the statutory procedure established under the Act of 2005 and
the Act of 1897. He submits that under the relevant provisions
of the Act of 2005, cognizance of an offence can be taken only
upon a complaint made by the designated authority. Therefore,
the imposition of penalties by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is
wholly devoid of jurisdiction. He further submits that under the

7
statutory framework, liability can only be fixed through due
process of law upon a proper complaint and subsequent judicial
adjudication, whereas in the present case, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate directly passed the impugned penalty orders without
following the procedure established by law or adhering to the
principles of natural justice. He also submits that the Division
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P.
(Cr.) No. 566/2021 (Virendra Chourasia & others Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors.), has already quashed the foundational FIR
No. 587/2021 dated 04.07.2021 registered at Police Station
Ambikapur. Hence, the very substratum of the alleged
contravention stands erased and the consequential recovery
proceedings cannot be sustained. Therefore, while the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3630/2021 and W.P.(C) No. 3995/2021
seek the quashing of the penalty orders and all recovery
proceedings, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3669/2021, having
deposited Rs.4,75,000/- under protest, is entitled to a direction
for full refund of the said amount along with appropriate interest.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the State submits that the fine was rightly imposed
by the concerned authorities and that the impugned orders suffer
from no illegality or infirmity. He submits that when the Central
Government had restricted attendance at marriage functions to
a maximum of 50 persons that too subject to strict compliance
with safety guidelines, the petitioners could not have permitted a
gathering of about 1000 persons at the venue. In this regard, the

8
concerned Tehsildar conducted a preliminary enquiry and
verified that an assembly of around 1000 persons had indeed
gathered on the date of the function, in clear violation of the
COVID-19 Notifications and directions issued by the competent
authorities. Consequently, the registration of the FIR and the
subsequent administrative imposition of penalty were well within
the realm of law and warrant no judicial interference by this
Court. However, learned State Counsel could not dispute the
material fact that the FIR registered against the petitioners on
the very same set of factual allegations has already been
quashed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
21.08.2023 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 566 of 2021 (Virendra
Chourasia & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others).
7. Mr. Anand Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh,
learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that the
penalty was rightly been imposed and the owner of the garden
namely Virendra Chourasia has deposited the amount of fine
before the authorities concerned. He further submits that a bare
reading of the impugned orders unequivocally demonstrates that
the said directions were issued solely by Respondent No. 3
(Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Incident Commander,
Ambikapur) in the exercise of powers delegated under the Act of
2005 and the Act of 1897, whereby Respondent No. 4 (Municipal
Corporation, Ambikapur) was designated purely as a receiving
and treasury node for administrative convenience and
accounting purposes. He submits that Respondent No. 4

9
possesses no independent statutory or executive authority to
enforce, alter or discharge the impugned penalty orders nor has
it exercised any quasi-judicial discretion in relation thereto, its
role being strictly confined to ministerial compliance with the
directions of the competent Incident Commander. He lastly
submits that no cause of action arises against Respondent No.
4.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the documents annexed with the petition with utmost
circumspection.
9. Evidently, under the Act of 2005, the Sub Divisional Magistrate
lacks jurisdiction to unilaterally issue orders for the imposition of
pecuniary penalties. Under the scheme of the Act of 2005, a
complaint must first be instituted and duly adjudicated before
holding a person guilty. In the present case, no such complaint
as contemplated under the Act of 2005 was ever lodged or
adjudicated upon. The direct imposition of fine, without the filing
of a complaint and in the absence of due statutory adjudication,
is entirely beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the
authority concerned. Furthermore, Section 3 of the Act of 1897
contains no provision empowering executive authorities to
directly impose pecuniary penalties. The said section does not
lay down any independent penal procedure and it merely
stipulates that any person disobeying a regulation or order made
under the Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence
punishable under Section 188 of the IPC.

10
10. Under Chapter IV of the Act of 2005, the District Disaster
Management Authority is headed by the Collector or District
Magistrate as its Chairperson, who alone is vested with
executive powers to exercise functions under the Act. In the
absence of any statutory delegation or express power conferred
upon the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate to levy fines, the
impugned orders imposing penalties is manifestly illegal and
without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned orders must be
regarded as a nullity in the eyes of law. Additionally, where
proceedings could not be lawfully conducted and the alleged
contraventions were never proved in accordance with law, the
imposition of penalty remains wholly unsupportable.
11.
Moreover, once the First Information Report lodged against the
petitioners on the very same set of factual allegations has
already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 566/2021 on
the ground that it was unsustainable, the very basis for the
imposition of fine stands completely erased. When the
commission of any offence or violation could not be established
in the primary criminal action, administrative penalties cannot be
sustained on identical allegations, more so when no complaint
was ever filed or adjudicated by a competent forum.
12.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the imposition of penalties
upon the respective petitioners is held to be contrary to law and
unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders imposing
penalties passed by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate in

11
each of the Writ Petitions are hereby quashed.
13.
Since petitioner - Virendra Chourasia has already deposited the
penalty amount with the concerned authority, the concerned
authority i.e. Respondent No. 4 is directed to refund the said
amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the Writ Petitions
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay