JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 4th February, 1999. 3. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant inter alia on the ground that after conducting an enquiry by a responsible officer of the State it was found against the petitioner that he mis-appropriated the amount, which was disbursed for providing fodder to the animals during famine and after filing the reply to said notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, finding the petition is premature, the learned Single Judge has also found that petition raises disputed questions of facts and this Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to decide those disputed questions of facts. 4. According to the petitioner, he has distributed fodder during the famine period of 1986-87 and 1987-88 in Tehsil Doongargarh while he was Secretary of Shree Gopal Gaushala and reimbursement of expenses incurred alongwith subsidy was made after due verification. However, respondents have raised a demand of Rs. 1,35,241/- alleging that he has availed the payment to the tune of Rs. 1,08,797.50 in respect of fodder, which was not supplied by him and that he has availed excess payment of Rs. 17,778.50. In addition thereto, it was also stated in the notice dated 5.3.94 that the petitioner utilised for his own use the amount made available to him for securing fodder to the extent of Rs. 8,665/-. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was given notice to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,241. 5. In response to that notice, the petitioner required certain details about the demand raised vide the notice dated 5.3.94. Thereafter, it appears before any further action took place, he approached this Court. An interim order was passed in his favour against the recovery of said sum. 6. The respondents have stated that a complaint was received an enquiry was conducted by the SDO. He after examining the records available with the State and the accounts/records obtained from the Gaushala, has reached to prima-facie conclusion as aforesaid and therefore, the demand has been raised. 6. The respondents have stated that a complaint was received an enquiry was conducted by the SDO. He after examining the records available with the State and the accounts/records obtained from the Gaushala, has reached to prima-facie conclusion as aforesaid and therefore, the demand has been raised. As the petitioner-appellant was found to have indulged in securing payment in the name of fodder distribution, which was actually not distributed and has also received excess payment and used the sum made available to him for his own use as aforesaid. 7. The relief claimed by the petitioner is for quashing the notice dated 5.3.94 and restraining the respondents from taking coercive process against the petitioner for recovering the said amount. 8. Suffice it to state that as a result of enquiry conducted by the respondents its, if they have come to their own conclusion that excess payment has been made by them in respect of fodder distribution made by the petitioner, there is nothing to prevent the respondents from raising the demand on that account. However, if the petitioner denies the same, the question would then arise for adjudicating the amount, if any is payable by the petitioner and whether the said amount is recoverable by the respondents, if so in what manner. Since that stage has not been reached the petition was apparently premature, no action for recovering the amount for which the notice was issued on 5.3.94, has been initiated by the respondents at any stage thereafter. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petition was premature and has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on that ground. However, if any action is taken by the respondents for recovering the said amount by taking recourse to coercive measure, the petitioner shall be free to raise all the disputes and objections to such demand raised and recovery proceedings, if the same is not made after appropriate adjudicative process for determining the objections raised by the present petitioner and get its proper adjudication in the forum as may be available to the petitioner.The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed subject to above observations.Appeal dismissed - Petitioner free to assail coercive Mode of recovery when such action be taken. *******