Citation ; 2003 Local Law (CG) 71
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a member of the Zila Panchayat, Durg, who had challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 40(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Justice L.C. Bhadoo delivered the order, holding that the petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
The petitioner, a Zila Panchayat member from Gurur, alleged that the notice dated June 30, 2003, was issued with malafide intent. He claimed it was politically motivated, following his decision to join the Nationalist Congress Party after his leader, Vidya Charan Shukla, resigned from the Indian National Congress. The petitioner contended that the action was influenced by a local Congress MLA and aimed at compelling him to leave his new party.
According to the petitioner, the show cause notice cited seven criminal cases, including one conviction in 1996 and others related to protests in 1999 and 2001, which he argued were politically motivated and connected to farmers’ movements. He maintained that none of these cases fell within the scope of disqualification or removal provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, opposed the petition, asserting that the writ was not maintainable since it merely challenged a show cause notice. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a reply to the notice and that he would have the full opportunity to contest the allegations before the competent authority.
Justice Bhadoo observed that a writ petition can be entertained against a show cause notice only if the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or if the notice fails to meet legal requirements. In this case, the court found that the prescribed authority had jurisdiction under Section 40(1), and the allegations — including obstruction of government work and criminal conduct — fell within the ambit of the section.
The court also clarified that it was not appropriate to assess the merits of the case at this stage, as doing so could prejudice either side. Citing earlier judgments, including M/s Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer, the court reiterated that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted at the notice stage.
While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted the petitioner ten days to submit additional objections before the prescribed authority, which was directed to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The decision reinforces the principle that courts should refrain from interfering with administrative proceedings until a final order is passed, except where clear jurisdictional errors are demonstrated.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 2079 of 2003, Gulab Khatri vs. State of C.G. and Ors. (18.08.2003)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rajeev Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Dy. Adv. General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 39, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 40, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 40(1), Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Section 40(1)(A); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 107; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 116; Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 186; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 353
Cases Referred:
Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise 2001 (1) MPJR 191; Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer and Ors. 2003 (2) MPJR 1; Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 1571; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2001 (6) SCC 260; Bansmani Prasad Veerbhudra Shukla v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1980 MPLJ 34; Sarita Mabre (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1998 (1) JLJ 420
======
सेवा – ग्राह्यता (Maintainability) – नोटिस जारी करना – छत्तीसगढ़ पंचायत राज अधिनियम, 1993 की धारा 40(1)
प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 द्वारा छत्तीसगढ़ पंचायत राज अधिनियम, 1993 की धारा 40(1) के अंतर्गत एक कारण बताओ नोटिस (Show Cause Notice) जारी किया गया था, जिसके माध्यम से याचिकाकर्ता को जिला पंचायत दुर्ग के सदस्य पद से हटाने का प्रस्ताव रखा गया। इस आदेश के विरुद्ध याचिकाकर्ता ने उच्च न्यायालय में रिट याचिका दायर की।
प्रश्न: क्या यह याचिका ग्राह्य (Maintainable) है?
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता के विरुद्ध लगाए गए आरोप धारा 40(1) की उपधारा (1)(b) के अंतर्गत आते हैं। अतः इस अवस्था में मामले के गुण-दोष (Merits) पर विस्तार से राय देना उचित नहीं होगा क्योंकि ऐसा करने से किसी भी पक्ष को पूर्वाग्रह हो सकता है।
न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता को यह अधिकार है कि वह अपने सभी आपत्तियाँ प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करे, जो उसने इस याचिका में उठाई हैं। प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 को यह निर्देश दिया गया कि वह याचिकाकर्ता को कारण बताओ नोटिस पर उचित अवसर देकर उसकी सुनवाई करे और उसके बाद विधि अनुसार निर्णय पारित करे।
भले ही याचिकाकर्ता ने पहले ही कारण बताओ नोटिस का उत्तर प्रस्तुत कर दिया हो, न्यायालय ने उसे सभी बिंदु उठाने के लिए 10 दिनों का अतिरिक्त समय दिया।
निष्कर्ष: यह रिट याचिका असमय (Premature) पाई गई और इसमें कोई बल नहीं पाया गया। इसलिए, इसे खारिज (Dismissed) कर दिया गया।
