their back and before creating the demand, they were not extended an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsels would submit that in many cases, the price paid for the Solar Street Lights includes the installation charges whereas, the rate prescribed under the Rate Contract with D.G.S.&D. does not include installation charges. Drawing the attention of this court to Section 111 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( for short “the Act”), learned counsels submitted that before directing the recovery of amount against Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, the respondents were under an obligation to conduct the inquiry as per the procedure laid down and thus, the demand created against the petitioners without following the procedure laid down under Section 111 of the Act, is ex facie illegal. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, before creating the liability against the petitioners, the respondents were under an obligation to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thus, the impugned demands created in gross violation of principles of natural justice, deserve to be quashed for this reason alone. 5. On the other hand, the Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the provisions of Rule 184 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ( for short “the Rules”), submitted that the purchases in question could not have been made by the petitioners except by way of inviting open tender in sealed cover. Learned counsel
