Allowed

B.Radhakrishna Murthy v. Government of India., rep.by Ministry of Communications

Telangana HC19 Mar 2010WP/25771/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order requiring the petitioner to return Rs.10,420/- allegedly received as commission in excess of the SAS Scheme limit. The order was quashed as it was passed without prior notice, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09-06-2008 and consequent letter dated 11-11-2008 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within two weeks.

B.Radhakrishna Murthy Vs Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.25771 OF 2008

¶3

Dated 19^th March, 2010

¶4

Between: B.Radhakrishna Murthy …Petitioner And Government of India and four others

¶5

…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.S.Varma, SC for Central Govt.

¶6

The Court made the following

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 09-06-2008, and consequent letter, dated

¶9

11-11-2008, of respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner was called upon to return the amount of Rs.10,420/- allegedly received by him in violation of the terms of Standardised Agency System (SAS) Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

At the hearing, Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, advanced two-fold submissions, namely; (1) that before passing the impugned order, the respondent No.5 has not afforded an opportunity of being heard and therefore, the impugned order and consequent letter are in violation of principles of natural justice and (2) that the respondents having got the benefit of the deposits in excess of Rs.50,000/- cannot deny the commission to the petitioner on such excess deposits.

¶11

A perusal of the impugned order and consequent letter show that the petitioner has been required to remit back the sum of Rs.10,420/- allegedly received on the investments made in excess of Rs.50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that no prior notice has been issued by respondent No.5 before calling upon the petitioner to remit the above-mentioned amount. In my opinion, principles of natural justice require giving of such a notice before passing an order adverse to the petitioner’s interests. Therefore, I find merit in

¶12

the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order and consequent letter are in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

With regard to the second contention, the respondents will have to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an order. If an adverse order is passed by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to question the same. Until then, it is not necessary for this Court to give a finding on the second contention advanced by the learned counsel.

¶14

For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order and consequent letter are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation raising all legally sustainable grounds against the proposed recovery of the commission received by him. The petitioner shall file such a representation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same objectively, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order.

¶15

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶16

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶17

Dated 19^th March, 2010 lur

B.Radhakrishna Murthy v. Government of India., rep.by Ministry of Communications

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Radhakrishna Murthy v. Government of India., rep.by Ministry of Communications

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

Dr.Syed Jaweed Muneer Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Narayana Vs Northern Power Distribution company Limited, Warangal

Vittanala Rama Tulasi, D/o. Guttula Satyanarayana Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.M.S.V. Rama Leela Vs State Bank of India

S.Rahul Reddy Vs Government of India

Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, Vs The Circle Inspector of Police