Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23062
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
CHANDIKESHWAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 2310 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. N. Pandey
For the Respondents: Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Anil S. Pandey
A party may be granted liberty to present evidence before administrative authorities to challenge a recovery order if it is shown that prior proceedings on the same facts were closed but not considered by the authority.
Headnote:The petitioner, serving as a Panchayat Secretary, challenged a recovery order of Rs 2,57,000/- issued by the Collector, Balrampur, following a revenue revision. The petitioner contended that previous proceedings regarding the construction work in question had already been closed on 16.05.2011 upon completion of the work, but this fact was overlooked in subsequent recovery proceedings and the subsequent revision dismissal dated 19.01.2022. The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present evidence of the completed construction work to the authorities. The court observed that since the proceedings were previously closed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), and this fact was not brought to the notice of the deciding authorities, the petitioner deserves a chance to submit relevant documents for a fair decision. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges a recovery order claiming prior closure of proceedings on the same facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court identifies that recovery proceedings were initiated without considering a prior order closing the matter. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. granting liberty to the petitioner to submit documents for a fresh decision by authorities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
Order on Board
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of recovery of Rs 2,57,000/- issued by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner ANNEXURE P/1.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside of impugned order dated 19.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 in revenue revision no. 06/B-121/2015-16 ANNEXURE P/2.
10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Maheshpur was served with a recovery notice to the tune of Rs. 2,57,000/- issued by Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj pursuant to order dated 19.01.2022 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 201604270100002 (06/B-121/2015-16). He would contend that the original order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) Ramanujganj and that proceeding was closed vide order dated 16.05.2011 on the ground that the petitioner had completed remaining construction work. He would submit that Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) again initiated a proceeding against the petitioner on same set of facts and allegations, which were already concluded vide order dated 16.05.2011 and said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Balrampur by filing a revision petition, but same has been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022. He would submit that interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 04.04.2022, which is still operating.
3. It is contended by Mr. A.N. Pandey that petitioner had already completed the construction work, but relevant documents were not produced either before the Collector or before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). It is contended by Mr. Pandey that the petitioner may be granted liberty to place all relevant documents before the respondents No. 2 & 3, and in turn, said authorities may be directed to take appropriate decision within stipulated time.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the revision preferred by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Collector, Balrampur and pursuant to said order recovery notice has been issued. They would submit that petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6. It appears that the petitioner failed to complete construction work, therefore, an enquiry was initiated and decision was taken to recover the amount. Order sheet dated 16.05.2011 would reveal that time was granted to complete construction work and proceedings initiated against the petitioner were closed. Subsequently, Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) without taking note of order-sheet dated 16.05.2011 initiated a recovery proceedings against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Collector and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022 and recovery notice to the tune of Rs. 2,57,000/- was issued on 19.01.2022.
7. Having considered the fact that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were closed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj vide order dated 16.05.2011 and this fact could not be brought into notice of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Collector. This petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in fa
