High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/4751/2021disposed off

Shailendra Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2021-11-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4751 of 2021

1. Shailendra Kumar Verma, S/o Ganga Prasad Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Davanbod, Tahsil Simga, Block Simga, DistrictBaloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Purshottam Verma, S/o Nakul Verma, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Davanbod, Tahsil Simga, Block Simga, District-Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

5. Govind Verma S/o Ramesh Verma Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Davanvbod, Tahsil Simga, Block Simga, District Baloda BazarBhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners :

Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 25/11/2021

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, directing the respondent No.4 to enquire into the complaint made by the petitioners against the

Page No.2 respondent No.5 and submit report.

3. It is submitted that under the provision of Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993(for short ' the Act, 1993) the competent authority for making such inquiry in the complaint regarding financial irregularities is SDO(Revenue), therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.

4. Learned State counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed.

5. After considering on the submissions and taking into consideration the provision under Section 40 of the Act, 1993, the petition is disposed off at motion stage. Respondent No.2 is directed to proceed on the complaint filed by the petitioner in strict compliance with the Section 40 of the Act, 1993.

6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha