Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 384 (GUJ)

PARMAR RAIBEN AMTHABHAI v. DEPUTY SECRETARY

2002-05-02

J.N.PATEL

body2002
JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). RULE. Mr. Kotak, Ld. AGP for the respondent waives the service of notice of rule. ( 2 ) ). THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is running Ashram Shala and it was recognised for the peyment of grant initially. However, in the year 1995-96, 1996-97, the grant was sanctioned. But the sanction had taken place on 8. 1. 1996 and on 15. 1. 1997 and it was found by the authority that there is breach committed and the conditions for maintenance of Ashram Shala, are not complied with and the genuine students are less in comparision to the number of the student admitted in the Ashram Shala. The authority passed an order on 3. 5. 2000 whereby, it has been decided to recover the grant of Rs. 1,25,600. 00 from the grant for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 etc. The grant was made admissible on the basis of the existing 76 students as against the admission of 86 students. ( 3 ) ). THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government against the decision for recovery of the grant and in the appeal, one of the contention raised by the petitioner was that the opportunity of hearing was not given. The State Government decided the appeal vide order dtd. 14. 6. 2000 (Annex. "f") and dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Director, Social Welfare, dtd. 3. 5. 2000. It is these orders passed by the Director for recovery of the grant and its confirmation thereof, which are under challenge before this Court. ( 4 ) ). MR. Thakkar for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner by issuing the show cause notice, as to why the grant already paid to the petitioner should not be recovered and he submitted that the order passed by the First Authority and confirmed thereafter, by the Higher Authority is in breach of principle of natural justice. Mr. Thakkar also made statement that after the order, dtd. 9. 5. 2000 is passed, no payment of grant has been made and he also submitted that the amount of grant which was to be recovered vide order dtd. 3. 5. 2000 appears to have been recovered. Mr. Thakkar also made statement that after the order, dtd. 9. 5. 2000 is passed, no payment of grant has been made and he also submitted that the amount of grant which was to be recovered vide order dtd. 3. 5. 2000 appears to have been recovered. But be stated the facts remain that the order is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing therefore, the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) ). ON behalf of the respondent Mr. Kotak, submitted that, the inspection was carried out and pursuant to the inspection, the order is passed and therefore, he submitted that, it cannot be said that there is any breach of principle of natural justice. Mr. Kotak submitted that in any case, the amount of grant which was to be recovered is already recovered and therefore, the question of hearing may not survive. ( 6 ) ). CONSIDERING the over all facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly, in view of the fact that the order is passed without giving any opportunity and that the amount of grant is already recovered by the State Government, I am of the view that the following directions if made, would meet the ends of justice;1) the Director, Social Welfare, respondent No. 2 herein, shall issue the show cause notice for the recovery of the grant and give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2) the petitioner will at liberty to submit reply and after the hearing is over the decision will be rendered by the director as early as possible. 3) upon the decision rendered, after the hearing, the petitioner, if the Director finds to maintain the earlier order of recovery of the grant then he will not be required to pass consequent order for refund of the grant but if the Director accepts the explanation and defence of the petitioner and finds not to recover th grant, then the order will have to be passed by the Director, for the refund of the payment of the amount of grant or otherwise. ( 7 ) ). THE petition is allowed to the afoersaid extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. D. S. permitted. .