Disposed

Amarjit Singh v. Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2009CWP/1308/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a recovery notice. The court directed the respondent authority to follow the procedure under Section 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and provide an opportunity of hearing before passing a final recovery order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to follow the procedure under Section 29 of the Act and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing a final order.

Amarjit Singh Vs Chairman, Punjab Mandi… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition. No.1308 of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition. No.1308 of 2007 Decided on : 9-07-2009

Amarjit Singh

.... Petitioner

VERSUS

Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL .

¶11

Present:Mr. RK Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. SC Pathela, Advocate, and Mr. NS Kandhola, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral).

¶14

The petitioner, who is working as Mandi Supervisorcum-Fee collector in Market Committee, Bilga, Distt. Jalandhar, has filed the instant petition, challenging the notice dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5432072/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice could not be issued on the basis of inquiry report in the departmental proceedings under Rule 8 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1988.

¶15

In the written statement, the respondents have taken the

¶16

Civil Writ Petition. No.1308 of 2007

¶17

-2-

¶18

stand that the aforesaid notice was given to the petitioner under Section 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has been further stated that against the recovery notice, an appeal is maintainable under Section 29 Sub-Section 3 of the Act.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner states that even procedure provided under Section 29 of the Act has not been followed.

¶20

It is conceded position that before issuing this notice of recovery under section 29, the procedure provided under Section 29 has not been followed.

¶21

In view of these facts, learned counsel for the respondents states that respondents will provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and will follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 29 of the Act and thereafter, if there is any recovery to be made, a speaking order will be passed for recovery against the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the said statement made by counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents that he will appear before the authority and file his reply to the notice dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) and thereafter, after following the procedure, the order of recovery, if any, be passed.

¶23

Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow the procedure under Section 29 of the Act and to pass a final order after providing an opportunity of

¶24

Civil Writ Petition. No.1308 of 2007

¶25

-3-

¶26

hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

However, if any adverse order is passed, it will be open

¶28

for either the party to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶29

9^th July, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE

Amarjit Singh v. Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh v. Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.

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

Mahabir Rohilla and Ors. Vs Haryana State Elect. Board and Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs Managing Director, Punjab, Small Indus. & Ors.

Ajay Vs Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.

Subhash Chander Siger and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others