Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 24. 1995, in Na.Ka.No.D2/3504/94, ordering the recovery of Rs.6,142/-. 2. Having been appointed in the year, 1961, the petitioner was promoted as a Sanitary Officer from 11. 1994. While working as the Sanitary Officer in the Walajapet Municipality, the petitioner was allotted the work under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for taking samples and for initiating prosecution. However, with regard to the collection of licence fees, the Sanitary Inspector has been specifically allotted for the said purpose. 3. It has also been stated that a recovery order has been passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.D2/3504/94, dated 24. 1995, shifting the liability on the petitioner. 4. It has also been submitted that since the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without furnishing a list of defaulters, it is arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and the instructions issued by the Government, the Sanitary Inspector should prepare trade lists relating to the dangerous and offensive items, while implementing the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and to submit the same to the concerned office during the month of April of every year. The petitioner, who has been employed as a Sanitary Inspector, should have submitted the trade list for the year 1994-95, on 25. 1994. Since he had not taken any action against the unauthorised trades and as he had allowed traders to do busine`ss without municipal licences and without collecting the licence fees, the petitioner was held responsible for the loss to be recovered by way of the impugned order. Since the petitioner has been held responsible for the year 1994-95, a total amount of Rs.6,142/- was sought to be recovered from him. 6. It has also been stated that inspite of the show cause notices having been sent to the petitioner, on 3. 1994, 10. 1994, 11. 1995 and 20.3.1995, the petitioner had not given any reply so far. 7. 6. It has also been stated that inspite of the show cause notices having been sent to the petitioner, on 3. 1994, 10. 1994, 11. 1995 and 20.3.1995, the petitioner had not given any reply so far. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that by a subsequent letter, dated 20.4.1995, sent to the Commissioner, Walajapet Municipality, the petitioner had requested for settling his retiral benefits after deducting the amount recovered from him. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not refuted the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the writ petition stands dismissed as no further orders are required to be passed. No costs.