Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2647 (MAD)

Commissioner Tirupur v. A. Udayasuriyan

2023-08-01

K.KUMARESH BABU, R.SURESH KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 08.02.2016 made in W.P.No.4468 of 2016 by allowing the writ petition.) K. Kumaresh Babu, J. 1. This writ appeal had been directed against the order passed in W.P.No.4468 of 2016 dated 08.02.2016. 2. The appellant being aggrieved over the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.4468 of 2016 filed by the first respondent has filed this writ appeal, wherein the learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and also the orders of this Court had set aside the order passed by the appellant, which was impugned before the Writ Court. 3. Heard Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, who would submit that, the first respondent had wrongly paid with an excess amount, which is sought to be recovered and that the learned Single Judge without considering the facts and circumstances of the case simply following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, set aside the order of recovery. Originally, the appellant had ordered a recovery for a sum of Rs.2,82,616/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty two thousand six hundred and sixteen) vide its order dated 01.02.2016. 4. He would also submit that, if the amount paid in excess is not permitted to be recovered, would cause loss to the appellant Panchayat Union. Therefore, he would submit that since the order of the learned Single Judge has not been passed based on the relevant facts of the case, the same has to be set aside. 5. In spite of notice having been served to the first respondent/writ petitioner, he neither appeared in person nor through his counsel. 6. The learned single Judge had recorded that the facts of the case is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in White Washer''s case would not apply to the facts of the case. 8. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate that the learned single Judge has not considered the facts of the case for applying the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is without any merits. 8. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate that the learned single Judge has not considered the facts of the case for applying the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is without any merits. He has also not placed any material as to how the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court would not applicable to the present facts of the case. 9. We also do not find any infirmity in applying the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal, hence the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.