The Court disposed of the writ petition by applying an identical order passed in WP 22984 of 2010, holding that distraint notices issued without prior notice and opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained.
Petitioner's petition dismissed in terms of previous identical orders; no order regarding costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.21483 of 2010
ORDER:
The present writ petition came to be filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned distraint notices to the petitioner in form 2, under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act 1864, as illegal and improper.”
“In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders, which were passed without prior notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners solely on the basis of the social audit reports, cannot be sustained. Indeed, this Court in identical writ petitions, namely, W.P.No.14738 of 2010 and batch, has taken a similar view vide its order, dated 23.12.2010.
2
In the premises as above, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. The Project Director, DWMA, Chittoor/Anantapur, as the case may be, is directed to issue show-cause notices containing specific allegations against the petitioners and supply all the material forming basis for such allegations. If the Project Director concerned receives explanations from the petitioners within the stipulated time, he shall consider the same in detail and pass appropriate orders containing reasons in support of his conclusions with reference to the explanation offered and the material, if any, submitted by the petitioners.
It is made clear that the scope of these writ petitions is confined to fixing up the monetary liability only on the petitioners. This order will not prevent the disciplinary authorities from initiating appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioners in accordance with the extant Service Regulations.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Dt:14.07.2022 Rns
3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.21483 OF 2010
Date:14.07.2022
Rns
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of previous identical orders.
Whether the action of issuing distraint notices under the Revenue Recovery Act 1864 is illegal and improper.
petitioner
Revenue
panchayat Raj
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
