Ramdas v. District Magistrate/ Collector and 5 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The petition challenged an ex-parte notice for recovery issued without prior enquiry. The court held observance of audi alteram partem is mandatory. It directed the notice remain in abeyance and a fresh notice with materials must be issued.
What did the court decide?
Notice in abeyance for 3 months; fresh notice with materials to be issued within 2 weeks; enquiry to be completed within 2 months; no coercive measures for 3 months.
What the court decided
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14041 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramdas
Respondent :- District Magistrate/ Collector And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
- Heard Shri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
- Challenge has been raised to the notice-cum-order dated 06.04.2022 issued by respondent no.1/District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, whereby recovery of Rs. 26,000/- has been issued against the petitioner.
- Solitary grievance of the petitioner is, the aforesaid noticecum-demand was not preceeded by any other notice or enquiry proceedings. Thus, the demand has been raised in an ex-parte manner contrary to the governing Act and the Rules. The correctness of the submissions advanced is clearly made out from a plain reading of the communication dated 06.04.2022.
- Learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions, yet, he is not in a position to dispute the correctness of the fact assertion made by the petitioner.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a demand notice for recovery issued without prior notice or enquiry renders the order illegal and void.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ramdas
- respondent
District Magistrate/ Collector
Coram
Saumitra Dayal Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/14041/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court