THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.26808 of 2009 Between:
M. Balreddy PETITIONER AND
1. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Pitlam, Nizamabad District, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
Notice bearing No.EGS/22/2009, dated 9.10.2009 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pitlam Mandal, Nizamabad District, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,32,731/- to the Employment Guarantee Scheme account, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioner, he is the elected Sarpanch of Thimmanagar Gram Panchayat, Pitlam Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Government of India introduced a scheme known as ‘National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’ with the sole object to provide employment to the unemployed poor for a minimum period of 100 days in an year, and for implementation of the said scheme, the Government constituted a society called ‘Society for Rural Development Services’, Office of Commissioner Rural Development, Hyderabad at the State Level. The Government, for implementation of the said scheme at District level, appointed the District Collector as coordinator. The 2nd respondent has to monitor the said scheme and the 1st respondent-MPDO is the Programming Officer to monitor the scheme at Mandal level. As per the petitioner, he has absolutely no role in execution of the works sanctioned under A.P.N.R.E.G.S and Sarpanch is neither the authority to employ the wage seeker nor the person authorised to make payments to them. The 1st respondent, while pointing out certain irregularities in implementation of the said scheme, issued the impugned notice bearing No.EGS/22/2009, dated 9.10.2009, asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,32,731/- in the Employment Guarantee Scheme account.
4. Challenging the said notice dated 9.10.2009 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pitlam Mandal, the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. This Court granted interim suspension of the impugned notice on 15.12.2009 and issued Rule Nisi on 26.04.2010. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent-MPDO and the 2nd respondent-Project Director, denying the allegations and averments made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
6. As evident from the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, the principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that before fixing the liability on the petitioner by virtue of the impugned notice, the respondent-authorities did not hold any enquiry nor any opportunity was given to him to dispute the correctness of the liability fixed on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said action on the part of the respondent authorities is in total violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact, the said averment is not controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavits and on the other hand, the counters aver that the said notice is not a final order. There is absolutely no evidence placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that before resorting to the impugned action and fixing the liability on the petitioner, notice was issued and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show case as to why the said liability should not be fastened. This action, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and this ground is sufficient to set aside the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent. It is a settled and well established principle of law that any action, which has civil consequences, must necessarily be preceded by a show cause notice and opportunity of being heard to the persons likely to be affected. In the instant case, the same is conspicuously absent.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the notice dated No.EGS/22/2009, dated 9.10.2009 issued by the 1st respondent- MPDO. However, it is open for the respondent-authorities to issue notice afresh and take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
30th October, 2014 Js.