Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1742 (PAT)

Sundresh Paswan v. State of Bihar

2018-11-28

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

body2018
ORDER The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.04.2015 whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,04,257/- by way of compensation for price of foodgrains as also for quashing the reminders dated 02.05.2015, 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015 and 29.12.2015. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue of the year 2001-07 is being raised in the year 2015, hence the same is hopelessly time barred. It is further submitted that upon enquiry, the District Panchayat Raj Officercum- Land Revenue Deputy Collector, Sadar, Darbhanga by his letter dated 3rd June, 2005 has exonerated the writ petitioner of any misappropriation, after conducting due inspection and enquiry. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that in the said report there is a reference of 18 quintals of foodgrains having been saved from the floods and kept elsewhere. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to his letter dated 12.05.2015 wherein he has explained that the said 18 quintals of rice was used for preparing Khichri for the flood victims in compliance of the letter of the Mukhiya. Lastly, it is stated that no show cause notice has been given to the petitioner seeking his response prior to inflicting the order of recovery, a decision which has been taken uninamously by the Block Development Officer, Hayaghat by his letter dated 20.04.2015. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made by them and I find that admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the order of recovery dated 20.04.2015. In fact, upon a query having been made from the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, no such show cause notice could be shown to this Court to impress upon this Court that the principles of natural justice have been complied with. 4. Thus, it is apparent that an unilateral decision has been taken by the authorities to make recovery from the petitioner herein, which is contrary to the well settled principle of law and amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. 5. 4. Thus, it is apparent that an unilateral decision has been taken by the authorities to make recovery from the petitioner herein, which is contrary to the well settled principle of law and amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Block Development Officer, Hayaghat and the subsequent remidners dated 02.05.2015, 01.09.2015, 02.09.2015 and 29.12.2015 are quashed, being not sustainable in the eyes of law. The writ petition is allowed.