Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted challenging the order dated 14.12.2020, passed by the Chief Development Officer/Additional District Programme Coordinator (MANREGA), Raebareli whereby certain amount has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner who is Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Unchahar Dehat, Raebareli.
The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that before passing the impugned order whereby recovery has been ordered to be made from the petitioner and in case of non-deposition of the amount to be recovered under the said order further direction has been issued for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner.
Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions received from the Chief Development Officer/Additional District Programme Coordinator (MANREGA), Raebareli contained in his letter dated 07.01.2021 has submitted that representatives of two Gram Panchayats other than Gram Panchayat Unchahar Dehat were present during the course of spot inspection/enquiry.
Having considered the arguments made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned in this petition whereby certain amount has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. Even as per instructions given to the learned State Counsel by the Chief Development Officer, Raebareli, the representative of the petitioner was not present during course of spot inspection/enquiry.
Since the impugned order saddles the petitioner with a pecuniary liability, in our considered opinion it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to have provided opportunity of hearing before taking any such decision.
The impugned order is, thus, so far as it relates to the petition, not sustainable for want of observance of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.12.2020, passed by the Chief Development Officer/ Additional District Programme Coordinator (MANREGA), Raebareli, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The Chief Development Officer/ Additional District Programme Coordinator (MANREGA), Raebareli is, however, directed to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders which may be warranted.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Sanjay