The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which recovery was sought from the petitioners on the allegation that on the basis of an audit enquiry it was found that the higher rate of house rent allowance had been paid to the petitioners as they were residing in the Municipality which was not declared as 'C' Class city.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent supporting the stand taken in Ext.P4. It is inter alia contended that the matter came to be noticed only after an audit enquiry and therefore the Government is entitled to recover the amount which was paid in excess of what has already been permitted.
3. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is indicated that it is after verifying all the records submitted by the petitioners that the rent had been fixed and paid. If at a later stage, it is recovered W.P.(C)No.24233 of 2005 2 from the petitioners, that will amount to an unfair act on the part of the respondent authorities. Ext.P4 is therefore arbitrary and cannot be a reason for recovering any amount from the petitioners. The respondents have no case that the HRA was fixed on any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside and accordingly Ext.P4 is quashed, allowing the writ petition.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE rkj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE