Delhi High Court
Prem Chand Gupta & Ors. vs Chief Postmaster & Ors. on 12 August, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 4087/2014
PREM CHAND GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Adv.
versus
CHIEF POSTMASTER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. A.K. Gautam and
Mr. M.P. Singh, Advs. for R1 and R2.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for R3 with
Mr. Parveen Kumar, O/O SDM, Kotwali.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby
they were directed to deposit Rs.70,64,623/- by 15.05.2014 failing which
action for the realization of the dues will be taken as per Section 67 of
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
2. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioners applied
under RTI whether the recovery certificate has been issued by the
respondent no. 1. In response thereto, respondent no.1 replied as under:
(i) No such certificate has been issued.
(ii) No correspondence has been made for recovery certificate from
SDM, Kotwali
(iii) No enquiry has been made for recovery certificate
(iv) No any official has been issued recovery certificate by the CPM,
Delhi, GPO.
(v) No any notice has been issued to the applicant and his family
members in respect of recovery certificate.
3. This communication has also been issued on behalf of the Chief Post
Master/CPIO, Delhi, GPO.
4. On specific enquiry, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 states that the communication dated 29.03.2013 addressed
to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Recovery) was issued by Sh. G.C. Pant, Chief
Post Master and also admitted that the information to the petitioner under
RTI was also given by the same Officer.
5. Accordingly, Mr. G.C. Pant, Chief Post Master was directed to remain
personally present in the Court with all relevant records on the next date of
hearing to clarify the contradictory communication.
6. Mr. G.C. Pant, Chief Post Master is present in the Court and submits
that the information under RTI Act given to the petitioner is due to some
communication gap. However, the same may be ignored.
7. Mr. Pant has undertaken not to repeat such type of mistake in future.
8. The fact remains that before issuing the recovery certificates the
petitioners were not put on notice. No opportunity was given to the
petitioners of being heard. It is a violation of natural justice.
9. In view of above, recovery notices dated 30.04.2014 is hereby
quashed.
10. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass a fresh order after giving
opportunities to the petitioners in accordance with law.
11. In view of above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
12. I here make it clear that if the petitioners succeed before respondent
no. 1 that no dues are pending against them, they will have the liberty to sue
for the charges / damages incurred in contesting the cases or in getting the
information from the respondent no. 1.
CM. NO. 8200/2014
With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
AUGUST 12, 2014
jg
