A writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal to the Collector, is available to the aggrieved party under the governing statute.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner, Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pawani, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, whereby recovery of Rs. 2,95,781.50/- has been directed against the petitioner in proceedings initiated under Section 92 of the C.G. Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam, 1993”). The said order has been passed on the allegation that the petitioner had embezzled Gram Panchayat funds allotted for development works. Proceedings under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report alleging misappropriation of funds allocated for development works. As such being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order of recovery dated 06.02.2026 and notice of recovery dated 10.02.2026 and 16.02.2026 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) with complete proceedings of Revenue Case No. 202504321100068-A/89 (Dhara 92) Varsh 2024-25 pending before the SDO Revenue Bilaigarh.

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the due procedure prescribed under law. It is contended that no adequate opportunity was granted and no evidence of witnesses was recorded prior to passing of the order. It is further submitted that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, certain funds were diverted for emergent purposes, however, there was no misappropriation in any manner. So far as payment to the concerned parties is concerned, the same was made in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the preparation and maintenance of muster rolls fall within the domain of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner had no role in the same. It is also contended that the development works were duly executed and a resolution dated 29.04.2020 was passed in that regard. According to the petitioner, if there were any irregularities in preparation of bills or records, the responsibility would lie upon the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and not upon the Sarpanch. Therefore, it is submitted that in absence of proper opportunity of hearing and compliance of due procedure, the impugned order dated 06.02.2026, as well as the consequential notices initiating recovery proceedings, are per se illegal and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the efficacious alternative remedy available under the statute. It is contended that against the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the concerned Collector and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the SDO (Revenue), B