Smt. Gayatri vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, in Case No.259A/89/2018-19, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund in Case No.10A/89 Year 2018-19, has been affirmed. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a resident of Village Mokhaputka, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, being a beneficiary under the Indira Awas Scheme, had received the first installment of Rs.35,000/-. On a complaint made by the Sarpanch, proceedings for recovery of the said amount were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali. Since the amount was not deposited, an order of attachment was passed on 12.03.2019. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund, who, vide order dated 08.08.2019, modified the said order and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 15 days. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the Addtional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2022, affirming the order passed by the Collector. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor lady and, despite the fact that she had been granted the benefit of the Indira Awas Scheme, she could not derive the intended benefit thereof. Learned counsel further submits that before directing recovery of the amount of Rs.35,000/-, the authorities did not conduct a proper inquiry in the presence of the petitioner nor was any adequate opportunity granted to her to explain her case. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below are in violation of the principles of natural justice and deserve to be set aside.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order of recovery was not passed mechanically. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the Sarpanch and, after consideration of the matter, the competent authorities passed appropriate orders. It is further submitted that the Collector, in appeal, had already considered the grievance of the petitioner and modified the earlier order dated 12.03.2019 by granting the petitioner 15 days' time to deposit the amount. Thereafter, the revisional authority also considered the matter and affirmed the order passed by the Collector. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that there is no reason for interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

From perusal of the record, it appears that the proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs.35,000/- were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by the Sarpanch. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali, thereafter passed the order dated 12.03.2019, against which the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund. The Collector, after considering the matter, modified the said order and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount within a period of 15 days. The petitioner thereafter availed the revisional remedy before the Additional Commissioner, who, vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2022, considered the challenge and affirmed the order passed by the Collector.

Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedies available to her and both the authorities below have considered the matter and recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner is a poor lady or claims that she could not derive the intended benefit of the scheme, the same, by itself, would not be sufficient to interfere with the orders passed by the competent authorities, particularly when no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the authorities are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioner has also failed to point out any patent jurisdictional error or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

So far as the submission regarding denial of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court as to what prejudice has actually been caused to her on account of the alleged denial of opportunity. Moreover, the appellate as well as revisional authorities have considered the grievance of the petitioner on merits. In the absence of any perversity, violation of statutory procedure or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the authorities below, this Court, in exercise of its limited writ jurisdiction, would not be justified in re-appreciating the factual aspects of the matter or substituting its own view for the concurrent findings recorded by the competent authorities.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.), as well as the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.).

Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs.