Allahabad High Court
Rizwana Begam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1893 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rizwana Begam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrett. U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was the Village Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Pakhan Pur, Block - Kurebhar, Tehsil Sadar, District - Sultanpur. It is stated that the term of the petitioner expired on 31.01.2019 and during the period, the petitioner worked as a village Panchayat Secretary.
3. Certain irregularities were noticed with regard to the development work carried out in the said village panchayat and as per the inquiry report submitted by the competent authority, the work assigned were never carried out and hence proceedings for levy of surcharge against the persons responsible was initiated.
4. After giving opportunity of hearing to the cornered persons, by means of order dated 01.06.2021, the surcharge for an amount of Rs. 6,48,103/- was levied on the petitioner by the District magistrate.
5. Against the order dated 01.06.2021, the petitioner approached this Court by means of filing a Writ Petition No. 14757 (MS) of 2021 which was dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy by means of judgment and order dated 15.07.2021. The petitioner admits that he is not availed his statutory remedy to prefer a review petition against the order dated 15.07.2021 which is pending considerations. He has further submitted that review petition till date has not been admitted.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to the fact that petitioner did not deposit the amount of surcharge, the respondents have issued a recovery order dated 08.02.2023 seeking to recover the outstanding amount of surcharge from the petitioner within a period of 15 days.
7. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of recovery. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the recovery order is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be enforced against the petitioner in light of the fact that review petition is pending.
8. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that once the petitioner has already challenged the order dated 01.06.2021 and the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy available to him, it was always open for the petitioner to approach appropriate authority in which he could move an application for interim relief before the competent authority. But despite the order dated 15.07.2021, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner.
9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. From the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has already been approached this Court against the order of surcharge dated 01.06.2021 and his writ petition was dismissed on the ground of statutory remedy, the petitioner instead of availing of his statutory remedy, he has preferred a review petition but for the last three years, the said review petition is pending and no order has been passed thereon and undoubtedly the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14751 ((MS) of 2021 has not been interfered with.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner has not shown any provision as to how the order dated 08.02.2023 impugned in the present writ petition requires interference by this Court by exercising Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. It is further noticed that the order dated 08.02.2023 is merely a consequential order after final order has been passed in the matter on 01.06.2021. The petitioner despite dismissal of his petition in 2021 has not either approached the statutory authority nor has paid the amount and as a natural consequence th recovery order has been passed against him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said order is in violation of any statutory provision or rules in this regard.
13. In light of the above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order dated 08.02.2023. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
Ravi/
