Quashed

V.Dillip Kumar v. the Assistant Executive

Madras HC8 Mar 2021WP/12147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a departmental audit notice requiring payment of a sum. The court quashed the notice due to the lack of a speaking order in the show cause notice issued earlier and without hearing, remanding the case.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 27.03.2012 is quashed. The case is remanded to the respondent to pass a speaking order within three months after providing a personal hearing.

V.Dillip Kumar Vs the Assistant Executive — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.12147 of 2012 and W.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012

¶6

V.Dilip Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Urban/ Ambur – 635 802.

¶7

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Electricity Distribution Circle, Thirupatur. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in Letter No.AEE/J/ABR/F Audit/D.No./243/12 dated 27.03.2012 quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.Varun Kumar

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This Writ Petition is however taken up for final disposal though there is representation on behalf of the petitioner as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against the petitioner.

¶12

2.The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.Nos.20358 and 20359 of 2004 for a writ of certiorarified to quash the first respondent in Letter Nos.Asst.Engg/O&M/Town/Ambur/Ko.39/928/ 04, Asst.Engg/O&M/Town/Ambur/Ko.39/929/04 respectively.

¶13

3.The said writ petition was came to be disposed by an order dated 18.03.2011 by directing the respondent to issue a proper show cause notice giving the reasons for the proposed demand and also to enclosed the copy of the audit objection of the department. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in the above writ petitions, a show cause notice dated

¶14

17.06.2011 bearing Lr.No.AEE/U/ABR/F.Audit/D.No.045 was also issued to the petitioner.

¶15

4.The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice by a reply dated 09.07.2011. However, without calling the petitioner for a personal hearing, straight away impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,26,779/- purportedly in terms of the order of the this Court in W.P.Nos.24498 and 24499 of 2004 pointed out in the audit of LT SC No.441-111-294(Old SC No.1/294) dated 441-111-310 (Old SC No.1/310).

¶16

5.Since the demand has been made directly without passing any speaking order in the show cause notice dated 17.06.2011, I am inclined to quash the same and remit the case back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing order, petitioner shall be called upon for a personal hearing either physically or through Video Conferencing.

¶17

6.The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jas To 1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Urban/ Ambur – 635 802.

¶18

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Electricity Distribution Circle, Thirupatur.

¶19

W.P.No.12147 of 2012 and W.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012

¶20

GSM(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GN(30/03/2021)

V.Dillip Kumar v. the Assistant Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Dillip Kumar v. the Assistant Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Thiagarajan Vs K.Chandrasekaran

Mrs. Manisha Preeth, Vs the Assistant Engineer

The Gandhi Nagar Education Vs State of Tamilnadu

Chandra Kasinathan Vs The Tamil Nadu Transmission

P.Sivanantham Vs The Chairman

M/S.Kothari Sugars and Vs the Urban Land Tax Tribunal