Section 40 Panchayat Raj appeals must be decided within six months after hearing all concerned parties.

The petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking directions to the respondent authorities to act upon his representations and to decide his pending appeal, Case No. 146 of 2022–2023, filed under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

The appeal had allegedly been pending since 1 September 2025. Although a show-cause notice was issued on 7 October 2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh, had not decided the matter despite the lapse of more than 330 days and repeated representations by the petitioner.

The petitioner clarified that he was not challenging any particular order, but only the inaction and delay in deciding the statutory appeal.

The State opposed the relief, but the High Court considered the matter on the limited issue of expeditious disposal.

1. Whether the High Court should direct the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending appeal under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, within a stipulated period.

2. Whether the concerned authority must issue notice to and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Sarpanch, arrayed as respondent No. 3, before deciding the Section 40 proceedings.

The Court applied Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, governing the statutory application/appeal concerning proceedings under the Panchayat law.

The Court directed that such proceedings be decided strictly in accordance with law and the prescribed procedure, consistently with the principles of natural justice.

In particular, every concerned party, including the Sarpanch against whom allegations had been made, was required to receive due notice and a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before an adverse or final order was passed.

The Court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits and that the competent authority must independently decide the matter.

The Court treated the petitioner’s grievance as one of prolonged administrative inaction rather than a challenge to the merits of any order.

Since the Section 40 appeal had remained undecided for an extended period despite issuance of a show-cause notice and repeated representations, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a limited procedural direction for expeditious adjudication.

At the same time, because the allegations in the underlying proceedings were directed against respondent No. 3, the Court emphasized that non-issuance of notice to him in the writ petition could not dispense with his right to notice and hearing before the statutory authority.

Accordingly, the Court balanced expedition with procedural fairness by requiring adjudication within a fixed period while preserving the merits-based and participatory jurisdiction of the SDO (Revenue).

The authority was required to follow due process, issue appropriate notice to respondent No. 3, afford all concerned parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide the matter independently on its merits.

The Court expressly clarified that it had made no observation on the merits of the underlying dispute.