Judgment :- 1. On consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petitions are filed to quash the proceedings No.A/3119/2004 dated 22.04.2009 passed by the second respondent, in and under which, the liability is fixed upon the petitioners for non supply of the goods and the same is treated as loss caused to the society to the tune of Rs.60,649/-and sought to be recovered from the petitioners and to consequently direct the respondents to repay the amount already recovered from the petitioners herein. 3. As all the three petitions involve identical issue for consideration, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by common order. 4. The petitioners herein, while working as Assistant Agricultural Officer in Padapai, were issued with show cause notice dated 07.10.2005 by the second respondent, calling for their explanation for the expiry of certain seeds and bio-fertilizers. The petitioners submitted their explanation to the effect that there was excess procurement of seeds and bio-fertilizers and there was no demand from the farmers and the petitioners were not personally liable for the same. Thereafter, there was no further communication from the second respondent for nearly 4 years. But all of a sudden, the impugned order came to be passed, thereby demanding payment of the amount representing the value of un-germinated seeds and expired bio-fertilizers as if the loss is caused to the society, on account of the petitioners inability to sell and to distribute the same to farmers. In pursuance of the impugned order, portion of the amount is also recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners have come forward with identical writ petitions challenging the validity of the recovery order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the order of recovery is not only unfair and arbitrary but also against the legal dictum laid down in the matters involving identical issue. The petitioners have come forward with identical writ petitions challenging the validity of the recovery order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the order of recovery is not only unfair and arbitrary but also against the legal dictum laid down in the matters involving identical issue. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 13.11.2008 in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.31092 to 31098 of 2004 passed by the Division Bench of our High Court and the order dated 28.09.2007 made in W.P.No.206 of 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of our High court (which are enclosed at pages 5 to 14 of the typed set of papers) in support of their contention that the petitioners cannot be held personally liable for the expiry of the seeds due to excess procurement. 6. The batch of writ petitions have been filed against the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, wherein the Tribunal dismissed all the O.As holding that the huge stock of the said items had gone waste and seeds were allowed to remain at godown even after it became ungerminated due to negligence and lack of devotion to the duty on the part of the officials concerned resulting in loss to the Society and such officials deserve to suffer stoppage of increment. Similar argument was advanced before the Division Bench of our High Court against the rejection of the petitioners claim by the Tribunal. 7. It is also brought to the notice of the Honble Division Bench the order dated 28.09.2007 made in W.P.No.206 of 2005 passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court wherein, our High Court has observed when there was no demand from the farmers, the officers cannot be expected to distribute the seeds which is not accepted by the farmers and no liability can be fixed on the officers for non distribution of the same when there was no takers. The Madurai Bench of this Court has in the earlier writ petition by observing so, quashed the similar recovery order. The Division Bench in the subsequent batch of writ petitions after considering the view taken by the Madurai Bench of this Court, has set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal and allowed the writ petitions by quashing the order of recovery. 8. The Division Bench in the subsequent batch of writ petitions after considering the view taken by the Madurai Bench of this Court, has set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal and allowed the writ petitions by quashing the order of recovery. 8. Applying the same ratio, the order of recovery impugned herein is liable to be set aside and portion of the amounts already recovered from the petitioners are to be refunded to them. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for and the amounts already recovered from the petitioners are to be refunded to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.