COVID wedding fines imposed by SDM without statutory authority quashed; Chhattisgarh High Court orders refund of ₹4.75 lakh】【：】【“】【

The petitions arose from a marriage held on 2 July 2021 at Chourasia Marriage Garden, Ambikapur, where authorities alleged that attendance exceeded the COVID-19 limit of 50 persons prescribed by the Collector’s notification dated 28 May 2021.

An FIR was registered against the petitioners, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Incident Commander imposed penalties of ₹2,37,500 each on Saroj Sahu and Prakash Sahu and ₹4,75,000 on garden proprietor Virendra Chourasia.

Chourasia paid the penalty under protest; recovery was stayed for the other petitioners.

The Division Bench had subsequently quashed the FIR arising from the same allegations.

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had statutory authority to impose pecuniary penalties directly for the alleged breach of COVID-19 restrictions.

2. Whether the penalty orders could stand where no statutory complaint had been filed or adjudicated and the FIR based on the same allegations had been quashed.

Under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the court held that a person’s liability for an offence must be determined through the statutory process, including a complaint and adjudication; an executive authority cannot directly impose a pecuniary penalty without statutory authority.

The court further held that Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 does not empower executive authorities to impose fines; it deems disobedience of a regulation or order under that Act an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court also observed that, under Chapter IV of the Disaster Management Act, the District Disaster Management Authority is headed by the Collector or District Magistrate, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no identified statutory delegation or express power to levy fines.

The penalties were imposed directly by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without a complaint or adjudication under the Disaster Management Act.

The court found no provision in Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act authorizing that officer to impose a fine, and no statutory delegation or express power permitting the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to do so.

It further considered that the FIR based on the same factual allegations had been quashed by the Division Bench, and concluded that the penalties could not be sustained on those allegations in the absence of a competent statutory determination.

It directed the concerned authority to refund Virendra Chourasia’s ₹4,75,000 within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.