Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.— The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of orders Annex.-1, 6, 7 and 8 effecting recovery. 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, 6, 7 and 8 have been issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Nohar, District Collector, Hanumangarh and Tehsildar (Revenue), Nohar respectively, 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 to 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, 6, 7 and 8, passed by Vikas Adhikari, Nohar, District Collector, Hanumangarh and Tehsildar (Revenue), Nohar respectively, the Tehsildar (Revenue) has proceeded to recover the amounts and has issued notice to the effect which is against the principles of natural justice. 4. I have perused the impugned orders. I have also considered the stand of the respondents taken by them in their reply filed with the connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4260/2004, specifically averments made in para 9 thereof. The counsel for the State does not deny their stand in all these matters as set out in the reply filed in the aforesaid connected writ petition. It is nowhere stated that prior to issuing notice for recovery any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. On the face of the record, action of the respondents is arbitrary and in violation of the basic principle of natural justice. The respondents are State Authorities and they are legally bound to act in accordance with law with fair play. In the circumstances, notices Annex.-1 dt. 09.04.2001 and Annex.-6 dt. 16.01.2002 as well as Annex.-8 dt. On the face of the record, action of the respondents is arbitrary and in violation of the basic principle of natural justice. The respondents are State Authorities and they are legally bound to act in accordance with law with fair play. In the circumstances, notices Annex.-1 dt. 09.04.2001 and Annex.-6 dt. 16.01.2002 as well as Annex.-8 dt. 26.07.2004 cannot be allowed to stand. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Notices Annex.-1, 6, 7 and 8 are quashed and the case is remitted to the respondent No. 3 with a direction to first hold enquiry in the matter in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before fixing the responsibility and raising demand for recovery. 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. No order as to costs. * * * * *