Full Judgment
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of orders Annex.-1, 2 and 4 whereby the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar passed orders for effecting recovery of Rs. 54,892 (Annex.-1) and Rs. 74,623/- (Annex.-2).
2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1995 and, during that tenure, certain constructions were made for the development of the village. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that notice/orders Annex.1, 2 and 4 have been issued by the Vikas Adhikari directing him to deposit the excess amount paid for the purpose of construction work in the village area. Assailing these order, it is vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that before passing the said orders for fixing the responsibility for the excess amounts it is the duty of the authority first to hold proper enquiry and thereafter sufficient opportunity of being heard need be given to the petitioner. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that specific averments have been made in para 9 of the writ petition for the said purpose.
3. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the so-called notices Annex.-1 and 2 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Nohar and Annex.-4 passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Nohar, the Tehsildar has proceeded to recover the amounts and has issued notice to that effect which is against the principles of natural justice.
4. I have perused the impugned orders as well as reply filed by the respondents, specifically averments made in para 9 thereof. It is nowhere stated that prior to issuing notice for recovery any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. For any recovery it is necessary to first fix the liability by holding an inquiry and thereafter order of recovery may be passed. On the face of the record, action of the respondents is orbitrary and in violation of the basic principle of natural justice. In the circumstances, notices Annex.-1 dt. 16.01.2002 and Annex.-2 dt. 01.06.2002 as well as Annex.-4 dt. 26.07.2004 cannot be allowed to stand.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Notices Annex.-1, 2 and 4 are quashed and the case is remitted to the respondent No. 3 with a direction to first hold enquiry and fix liability in the matter in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass orders. After completing the proceedings in accordance with law, if the petitioner is found to be responsible for depositing the excess amount the respondents are free to effect recovery of any amount found to be so recoverable.
6. No order as to costs.