Allowed

K.Manonmani v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Nov 2021WP/25078/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed orders declaring a financial loss and initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner for violation of natural justice. The Court directed the respondent to provide an opportunity for explanation, conduct a fair enquiry with personal hearing, and decide on merits within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 25.06.2021 and consequential order of 06.10.2021. Directed first respondent to provide opportunity for explanation, conduct enquiry with personal hearing, and decide issues wit

K.Manonmani Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24-11-2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.25078 of 2021 And WMP No.26419 of 2021

K.Manonmani

.. Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Coimbatore District,

¶10

Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶11

The Personal Assistant (Development) to the Collector,

¶12

Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Pollachi (North) Zone, Pollachi – 642 001.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi – 642 001. .. Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Notice in Na.Ka.No.1879/2021/bf1. dated 25.06.2021 and the order in Ref.No.19421/2021/D3, dated 06.10.2021, on the file of the first respondent and quashing the same as null and void.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Raja

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The order dated 25.06.2021 and the consequential order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the first respondent, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

2. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that an order of recovery determining the loss was passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 25.06.2021 without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry. Based on the said order dated 25.06.2021, the first respondent further initiated action by invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the representation submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has stated that the first respondent before passing the order dated 25.06.2021, no explanation was called for nor enquiry has been conducted.

¶23

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that no doubt the first respondent would determine the loss to be recovered from the petitioner. However, the petitioner must be provided with an opportunity to defend her case in respect of the loss determined by the Authorities. Such a valuable opportunity cannot be denied in view of the fact that the order dated 25.06.2021 determining the financial loss would prejudice the interest of the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the first respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶24

5. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1879/2021/bf1 dated 25.06.2021 and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.19421/ 2021/D3 dated 06.10.2021 are quashed. The first respondent is directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanations/ objections along with the documents and thereafter decide the issues. In this regard, the petitioner is directed to submit her explanations/objections along with the documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanations/objections from the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner and decide the issues on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the explanations/objections from the petitioner. The first respondent is directed to give an opportunity of one personal hearing to the petitioner to explain her case, as the petitioner pleads that she is no way connected with the financial loss.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

6. With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

Svn

¶31

To 1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore - 641 018. 2. The Personal Assistant (Development) to the Collector, Coimbatore – 641 018. 3. The Block Development Officer, Pollachi (North) Zone, Pollachi – 642 001. 4. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi – 642 001. +1cc to Mr.P.Raja, Advocate, S.R.No.60975 WP 25078 of 2021 GPL(CO) SU(03/12/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Manonmani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Manonmani v. The District Collector

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

M/S. Lakshmi Petrolub Agencies Vs the Executive Director

Nilaa Vengadavan Vs the District Collector

Jayakrishna Modern Rice Mill, Vs the Managing Director

Bannari Amman Spinning Mills Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

K.Vijayakumar, Vs Union of India

R.Sicily Vs Tamilnadu Electricity