HC issues notice over 'irregularities' in panchayat appointments

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has issued notices to the state govt and other respondents in a case alleging irregularities in appointments and works carried out in Gram Panchayat Panchdeori. The writ petition was filed by Arun Kumar Lahre, a resident of the panchayat, through his counsel Rohit Sharma, challenging an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bhilai-03.

The matter was heard by Justice AK Prasad.

The petitioner's counsel argued that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner obtained information about various works and appointments in Gram Panchayat Panchdeori and found serious irregularities upon reviewing the Gram Panchayat register, cashbook, and muster roll, indicating that the then-Sarpanch, Santkumari Sonke, appointed close relatives to posts.

The petitioner submitted an application under Section 40 read with Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act, 1993, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilai-03, District Durg, against the former Sarpanch. The SDO directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District Durg, to investigate the allegations and submit a report within seven working days.

The CEO's investigation validated the allegations, and the report was submitted to the SDO. Subsequently, the SDO issued a show-cause notice to the former Sarpanch, citing that continuing in the post would be against public interest. The former Sarpanch was directed to present her defence.

The former Sarpanch argued that her term ended and a new Sarpanch was elected, so the proceedings under Section 40 and Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act, 1993, should be closed. The SDO accepted this argument and closed the proceedings on 12 March 2025.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel contended that despite evidence of serious irregularities and favouritism in appointments, the SDO's order was not lawful, as it did not initiate disqualification proceedings under Section 40 of the Panchayati Raj Act, which could disqualify the former Sarpanch from contesting elections for six years.

After hearing the arguments, the Single Bench of Justice A K Prasad issued a notice to the state govt and other respondents, directing them to file their replies within four weeks. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a rejoinder, if necessary.

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has issued notices to the state govt and other respondents in a case alleging irregularities in appointments and works carried out in Gram Panchayat Panchdeori. The writ petition was filed by Arun Kumar Lahre, a resident of the panchayat, through his counsel Rohit Sharma, challenging an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bhilai-03.

The matter was heard by Justice AK Prasad.

The petitioner's counsel argued that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner obtained information about various works and appointments in Gram Panchayat Panchdeori and found serious irregularities upon reviewing the Gram Panchayat register, cashbook, and muster roll, indicating that the then-Sarpanch, Santkumari Sonke, appointed close relatives to posts.

The petitioner submitted an application under Section 40 read with Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act, 1993, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilai-03, District Durg, against the former Sarpanch. The SDO directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha, District Durg, to investigate the allegations and submit a report within seven working days.

The CEO's investigation validated the allegations, and the report was submitted to the SDO. Subsequently, the SDO issued a show-cause notice to the former Sarpanch, citing that continuing in the post would be against public interest. The former Sarpanch was directed to present her defence.

The former Sarpanch argued that her term ended and a new Sarpanch was elected, so the proceedings under Section 40 and Section 92 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act, 1993, should be closed. The SDO accepted this argument and closed the proceedings on 12 March 2025.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel contended that despite evidence of serious irregularities and favouritism in appointments, the SDO's order was not lawful, as it did not initiate disqualification proceedings under Section 40 of the Panchayati Raj Act, which could disqualify the former Sarpanch from contesting elections for six years.

After hearing the arguments, the Single Bench of Justice A K Prasad issued a notice to the state govt and other respondents, directing them to file their replies within four weeks. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a rejoinder, if necessary.