Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3142 (MAD)

N. S. Karthikeyan v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District

2012-07-19

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Proc.No.E/7152/96, dated 13.05.2002 ordering recovery of Rs.40,716/- (Rupees forty thousand seven hundred and sixteen only) from the petitioner in 41 monthly instalments with first instalment of Rs.760/-(Rupees seven hundred and sixty only) and balance 40 instalments of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) each. 2. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,07,806/-(Rupees one lakhs seven thousand eight hundred and six only) was recoverable from the father of the petitioner and out of the said amount, only a sum of Rs.66,590/-(Rupees sixty six thousand five hundred and ninety) was recovered from the father of the petitioner and Rs.40,716/- (Rupees forty thousand seven hundred and sixteen only) was still outstanding. 3. The impugned order on the face of it, is arbitrary being without jurisdiction. The respondents cannot recover the amount due from his father, from the petitioner, as the remedy with the respondents under law is to recover the amount from the estate of the deceased inherited by the legal representatives. 4. The impugned order further suffers from vice of non compliance of principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 5. The impugned order being arbitrary and without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained in law. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to refund the amount if any, recovered from the petitioner, within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost.