Pending statutory appeal must be decided expeditiously; writ petition disposed without adjudicating the removal order.

The petitioner was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bade Lakhapal, Janpad Panchayat Katekalyan, District South Bastar Dantewada.

A show-cause notice dated 27 May 2026 was issued alleging his involvement in preventing traders from Geedam from establishing shops at the weekly market in Katekalyan.

He submitted a reply denying the allegations and asserting that he had acted in the interests of the villagers.

Subsequently, grievances were raised regarding the shifting of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Residential School from Gram Lakhapal to Katekalyan, which the petitioner represented before the authorities.

Despite his responses and representation, the competent authority passed an order dated 9 July 2026 under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, removing him from the office of Sarpanch.

The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam before the competent appellate authority on 20 July 2026 and thereafter approached the High Court challenging the removal order.

Whether the High Court should directly adjudicate the challenge to the removal order passed under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 when the petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 91 was pending.

Whether the pending statutory appeal should be directed to be considered and decided expeditiously by the competent Collector.

The Court applied Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, under which an elected office-bearer may be removed in accordance with the statutory scheme, and Section 91, which provides the appellate remedy against such an order.

The Court followed the principle that where an efficacious statutory appeal is pending, the appropriate course is ordinarily to allow the statutory authority to consider and decide the grievance in accordance with law rather than undertake adjudication of the merits in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s challenge arose from an order passed under Section 40, but he had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy under Section 91 by filing an appeal before the concerned Collector.

Both parties acknowledged that the appeal remained pending.

Since the petitioner’s grievance could be examined by the competent appellate authority, and no determination on the merits was necessary for disposing of the writ petition, the Court considered it appropriate to direct expeditious consideration of the pending appeal rather than decide the validity of the removal order itself.

It directed the concerned Collector to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law.