Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 633 (HP)

Bohri Devi @ Babita Rani v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-07-03

DEV DARSHAN SUD, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
Judgment : Dev Darshan Sud, J. - 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The income of the petitioner and the fifth respondent which is the eligibility criteria for being appointed as Anganwari Helper is in dispute in the present case. We find from Annexure P-3 which is notice issued by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Nalagarh that direction was issued to both the petitioner and fifth respondent to appear on 18.2.2012. The said notice reads as under:- "To Smt. Bohri Devi @ Babita Rani, W/o Shri Kashmiri Lal, R/o vill. Pole-da-Khala, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. No. MC/NLG/2012 Dated the 3.2.2012 NOTICE 1. Whereas a certificate of Income bearing No. 4069/2007 dated the 18.5.2007 for an annual income of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven (sic) Thousand Five hundred only) was issued in your favour. 2. And whereas; on an enquiry undertaken by the undersigned, I have the reason to believe that the said certificate was issued in your favour by my predecessor and the same was not based on proper computation of annual income. 3. And whereas, the undersigned proposes to withdraw and cancel the said income certificate on the basis of enquiry conducted into the re-verification of your family income during the year 2007-08. Now, therefore, you are directed to appear before the undersigned on 18.2.2012 at 10.00 a.m. in my office at Nalagarh and to show cause as to why the said income certificate be not withdrawn and cancelled. You are also directed to bring along the original Income Certificate referred to above. In the event of your failure to appear either in person or through your authorized agent, exparte proceeding shall be initiated against you. Issued under my hand and seal of the court on this 3rd day of February, 2012. Sd/- (R. D. Hernote) Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. 3.2.2012." The decision pursuant to this show cause notice has been taken on 18.2.2012 (Annexure P-4) but what we find from the order is that it is mentioned that on 8.12.2011 both the parties were present in person. These facts cannot be reconciled as the hearing itself was fixed for 18.2.2012 and could not be held on 8.12.2011 before the notice (supra) dated 3.2.2012 was issued. 3. In these circumstances, we quash and set aside Annexure P-4 with direction that parties shall be given opportunity in terms of Annexure P-3 to substantiate their respective stand. These facts cannot be reconciled as the hearing itself was fixed for 18.2.2012 and could not be held on 8.12.2011 before the notice (supra) dated 3.2.2012 was issued. 3. In these circumstances, we quash and set aside Annexure P-4 with direction that parties shall be given opportunity in terms of Annexure P-3 to substantiate their respective stand. Needless to say, decision by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate shall be by a reasoned and a speaking order. He shall grant opportunity to both the parties to file their respective replies and place on record such material which they wish in support of their respective cases. 4. Since we have quashed Annexure P-4, needless to say, Annexure P-6 is also quashed and set aside. We expect the Executive Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date when parties first appear before him. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.