Allowed

P.Jeevarani v. The Assistant Director (Audit)

Madras HC17 Apr 2023WP(MD)/8591/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

By consent, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition for quashing a show cause notice and consequential order, directing the authorities to issue a notice and grant the petitioner an opportunity, including a personal hearing, within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to issue notice and grant personal hearing within six months.

P.Jeevarani Vs The Assistant Director (Audit) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.8591 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8591 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.7897 & 7899 of 2023

P.Jeevarani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the Assistant Director (Audit), Madurai.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai.

¶13

R.Boominathan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 222/2021/A1, dated 26.10.2021 and consequential impugned order of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.13/2023/A7, dated 10.03.2023, quash the same.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For R-1 : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.8591 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for

¶22

final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶23

2. This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorari, to quash

¶24

the impugned show cause notice, dated 26.10.2021 and consequential impugned order of the 1^st respondent, dated 10.03.2023.

¶25

3. The contention of the petitioner is that through the impugned order, the respondents are intending to recover the amount. The specific contention of the petitioner is the said order was passed without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case.

¶26

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order.

¶27

5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue notice to

¶28

the petitioner and grant sufficient opportunity including personal hearing as well. After considering the explanation of the petitioner and thereafter shall pass order and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/4

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.8591 of 2023

¶32

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶33

No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ksa

¶35

17.04.2023

¶36

¶37

The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the Assistant Director (Audit), Madurai.

¶38

The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

3/4

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.8591 of 2023

¶42

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶43

ksa

¶44

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8591 of 2023

¶45

17.04.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

4/4

P.Jeevarani v. The Assistant Director (Audit)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jeevarani v. The Assistant Director (Audit)

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

S.Sree Thangaraj Vs Mr.M.Arvind

Paramasivam, Vs Ramesh

S.S.Rahmathullah, Vs K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.

Pl. Kalaimathi Vs the Dist. Collector

Chinnakanni Vs The Director

R.Suresh Kanna Vs The Principal Secretary to Tamil nadu