ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed in public interest. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prayer made is to direct respondent 2 to effect recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- from the third respondent as arrears of land revenue. Grounds urged are the alleged inaction of respondent 1, resulting in huge loss of public revenue. 2. Despite pendancy of the writ petition for over a period of 5 years, no statement of objections has been filed by any of the respondents. 3. Heard. 4. The unrebutted position of facts is that while respondent 3 was President of Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura, he committed several irregularities in the administration of the Municipal Council and misappropriated huge amount belonging to the said Council. The aforesaid Municipal Council passed several resolutions requesting the Deputy Commissioner to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- from the 3rd respondent, hut without any effect. The Under Secretary to Government, Department of Housing and Urban Development is stated to have conducted a spot inspection on 6-11-1986 and submitted a report mentioning several acts of misappropriation committed by the 3rd respondent. Upon his enquiry, the elected body of the Council was cancelled and an Administrator was appointed in that behalf. The copy of the enquiry report has been filed with the petition as Annexure-B. The Deputy Commissioner is stated to have issued a show-cause notice to the 3rd respondent on 9-12-1987 calling upon him to make the payment of the aforesaid amount, but thereafter did not take any effective step for the enforcement of his own order. On account of the inaction of respondents 1 and 2, the former President of the Town Municipal Council-respondent 3 is alleged to have been allowed to illegally retain the aforesaid amount from the year 1985. It is contended that the aforesaid amount is recoverable from respondent 3 under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). 5. The issuance of notice Annexure-A dated 9-12-1987 calling upon respondent 3 to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- is not disputed. The English version of the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 308 of the Act is as under: NOTICE (Issued under Section 308 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964) 1. The issuance of notice Annexure-A dated 9-12-1987 calling upon respondent 3 to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount of Rs. 18,89,280/- is not disputed. The English version of the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 308 of the Act is as under: NOTICE (Issued under Section 308 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964) 1. In consideration of certain files, documents, and earlier inspection reports etc., of T.M.C. Holenarasipura, it came to our knowledge that you had allotted 74 sites to the 74 persons as referred detail, in the annexed list belonging to the said TMC Property during the course of your Chairmanship of TMC, Holenarasipura, without bringing to the notice of the said TMC; and even after you had not taken this subject-matter before the Board Meeting also. 2. You had allotted the said sites through signing on the Possession Certificates, by using the powers of the Chief Officer of the said TMC conferred under Sections 329 and 330 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964; even though you have no power in any manner under Section 43 of the said Act. 3. The notices are illegal which you had issued to the allottees. Hence, it clearly goes to show that you had acted in an arbitrariness manner in the matter of sites allotment. 4. From the above said facts, and your attitude in the administration; it is found that there was no sanctioning of TMC Council, or no grant of Government in respect of an area of 'Yekkerammana Kottalu' belonging to the TMC property; and also the persons, which you had identified as site less persons and issued show-cause notices to them, out of 74 persons already 37 persons have constructed their houses on their allotted sites, even not leaving the space to make road, and have encroached upon excess land. So for this act, it is not possible to us for drawing the layout plan. 5. By considering all the above said facts, herein, I, Sri Upendra Tripati, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 issue this show-cause notice, by directing you that due to your misconduct and negligence in your duty; the Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura has lost its property about 31,488 sq. feet land, and its value is about a sum of Rs. feet land, and its value is about a sum of Rs. 18,89,280/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs eighty-nine thousand two hundred and eighty only) which is loss to TMC. The said calculation is made as per Rs. 60-00 per sq. ft. on the basis of the bid amount, auctioned the sites in the 'Southern-Nala Layout' during 1985. Therefore, for the above said reasons, why not collect the said sites value for a sum of Rs. 18,89,280/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs eighty-nine thousand two hundred and eighty only) from you? And if you fail to do so, why not collect the said amount from you by treating the same as 'land revenue balance'? Hence, I hereby issue this show-cause notice calling upon you to explain the situation or to file your written statement in this regard, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, we will be treating as there is no say from you, and necessary further action will be taken against you in the matter". 6. There is nothing on record to show that respondent 3 had submitted any cause or denied his liability to make the payment of the amount. The amount payable by respondent 3 has been determined to be payable as such on the basis of the enquiry held against him, in consequence of which report dated 6-11-1986, Annexure-B was submitted. 7. Section 308 of the Act provides: "Liability of Councillors for loss, waste or misapplication.--(1) Every Councillor of a Town Municipal Council shall be personally liable for the loss, waste, or misapplication of any money or other property of the Municipal Council to which he has been a party, or which has been caused or facilitated by his misconduct or gross neglect of his duty as a Councillor. (2) If, after giving the Councillor or Councillors concerned sufficient opportunity for showing cause to the contrary the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property of the Municipal Council is a direct consequence of misconduct or gross neglect on his or their part, the Deputy Commissioner shall by order in writing direct such Councillor or Councillors to pay to the Municipal Council before a fixed date, the amount required to reimburse it for such loss, waste or misapplication. (3) If the amount is not so paid, the Deputy Commissioner shall recover it as an arrear of land revenue and credit it to the Municipal Fund. (4) An appeal shall lie from the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) to the Government". 8. Though the section does not contemplate the issuance of any show-cause notice, yet respondent 2 issued such notice apparently for compliance of the principles of natural justice. The passing of resolutions by the Council requesting for recovery of the amount payable by respondent 3 is not disputed. As respondent 3 had failed to show any cause, much less sufficient, as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 308 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner was legally bound to recover the aforesaid amount as an arrear of land revenue and credit the same to the municipal fund. Respondent 2 is proved to have failed in the discharge of his statutory obligation resulting in huge losses to the public revenue, which apparently adversely affected the interests of the Municipal Council. Even no objections have been filed by the respondents, yet we directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to intimate the action taken by respondent 2 regarding recovery of the amount payable by respondent 3. In response to our enquiries, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that till date no recovery has been effected and that from the last 7 years, respondent 2 has not taken any effective step for the recovery of the amount as mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 308 of the Act. The inaction of respondent 2 is deplorable. Respondent 1 also appears to have not ensured the taking of the effective steps for the recovery of the amount payable by the defaulter, i.e., respondent 3. As respondent 3 has withheld the amount payable to the Municipal Council without any just cause, he is liable to pay the same immediately and with interest, which is recoverable from him as compensation for wrongfully retaining the amount payable to the Statutory Authority. 9. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. Respondent 2 is directed to take immediate steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from respondent 3 treating the amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue as mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 308 of the Act. 9. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. Respondent 2 is directed to take immediate steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from respondent 3 treating the amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue as mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 308 of the Act. Respondent 3 is also held liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. If the arrears payable by respondent 3 are not paid, for any reason whatsoever, within a period of two months from today, respondent 3 shall be liable to pay the said amount along with interest calculable at the rate of 12% per annum with six monthly rests. 10. Respondent 1 is directed to get the matter enquired and ascertain the responsibility of the official who failed to perform his statutory obligation resulting in huge loss to the public revenue. Appropriate enquiry shall be held and concluded within a period of four months from today and appropriate disciplinary action initiated against the defaulting official within two months thereafter. 11. Respondent 3 is also held liable to pay the costs of this litigation, which is assessed at Rs. 2,000/-