Disputed factual claims regarding public expenditure cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Purnapani, District Gariyaband. Allegations were made regarding irregular payments and installation of solar lights through a private vendor instead of the authorised agency, CREDA.

An inquiry committee investigated the matter, following which the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, directed joint recovery of ₹5,11,500 from the petitioner and the Panchayat Secretary without initially affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

After the petitioner submitted his reply before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), an order dated 18 March 2021 directed recovery of ₹2,55,750 from him. His revision was dismissed on 27 December 2021.

Thereafter, by order dated 24 May 2022, the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch and disqualified from contesting elections for six years under Sections 92(1), 92(2) and 92(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993; recovery and coercive steps, including custody, were also undertaken.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner contended that the solar lights had in fact been installed and were functional. An affidavit filed by the concerned Chief Executive Officer confirmed that the lights complied with the requisite standards and were in proper working condition.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner had violated binding instructions requiring procurement through CREDA and was therefore not entitled to refund.

The petitioner’s tenure as Sarpanch expired during the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to the interim order dated 21 July 2022.

Whether the challenge to the petitioner’s removal from the office of Sarpanch and six-year disqualification had become infructuous upon completion of his tenure?

Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, adjudicate the petitioner’s claim for refund of ₹2,55,750 where the parties disputed whether procurement through an unauthorised vendor caused financial loss despite the solar lights being functional?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate refund on the ground that the installed solar lights were functional, notwithstanding the alleged violation of the State’s direction to procure them through CREDA?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised for resolving disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary adjudication.

It considered Sections 92(1), 92(2) and 92(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, under which proceedings concerning removal, recovery and disqualification of Panchayat office-bearers had been taken against the petitioner.

The Court also recognised the general principle of natural justice requiring notice and an opportunity of hearing before an adverse administrative or quasi-judicial action is taken, although it did not finally adjudicate the legality of the impugned orders because the challenge to removal had become infructuous and the monetary dispute required factual determination.

The Court held that the relief concerning restoration to or continuation in the office of Sarpanch had become infructuous because the petitioner had completed his tenure while protected by the interim order.

Regarding the refund claim, the Court noted a material factual dispute: the petitioner relied on the functional condition of the solar lights, whereas the respondents alleged non-compliance with the mandatory procurement procedure requiring purchase through CREDA.

Determining whether procurement from a private vendor was merely a procedural irregularity or resulted in actual financial loss, and whether the public exchequer received full value, would require examination of evidence and could not appropriately be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226.

Accordingly, the Court declined to decide the petitioner’s entitlement to refund on the merits and left the matter for determination by the competent civil court or other competent judicial forum.

The claim for refund of ₹2,55,750 was not decided on merits; instead, the petitioner was granted liberty to institute appropriate civil proceedings before the competent court or judicial forum.

The Court expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the monetary claim and that the competent forum would decide it independently on the evidence, uninfluenced by the observations in the writ order.

The writ petition was finally disposed of.