Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs A.Udayasuriyan on 1 August, 2023
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
and CMP.No.15696 of 2018
The Commissioner,
Vellakovil, Panchayat Union,
Vellakovil – 638 111, Tirupur District. ... Appellant
Vs
1. A.Udayasuriyan
2. The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 08.02.2016 made in W.P.No.4468 of 2016 by
allowing the writ petition.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kumaravel
Additional Govt. Pleader [R2]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/5
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU,J.)
This writ appeal had been directed against the order passed in
W.P.No.4468 of 2016 dated 08.02.2016.
2. The appellant being aggrieved over the order passed by the Writ
Court in W.P.No.4468 of 2016 filed by the first respondent has filed this
writ appeal, wherein the learned Single Judge following the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the orders of this Court had set aside
the order passed by the appellant, which was impugned before the Writ
Court.
3. Heard Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the appellant, who would submit that, the first respondent had
wrongly paid with an excess amount, which is sought to be recovered and
that the learned Single Judge without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case simply following the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, set aside the order of recovery. Originally, the appellant
had ordered a recovery for a sum of Rs.2,82,616/- (Rupees two lakhs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/5
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
eighty two thousand six hundred and sixteen) vide its order dated
01.02.2016.
4. He would also submit that, if the amount paid in excess is not
permitted to be recovered, would cause loss to the appellant Panchayat
Union. Therefore, he would submit that since the order of the learned
Single Judge has not been passed based on the relevant facts of the case,
the same has to be set aside.
5. In spite of notice having been served to the first respondent/writ
petitioner, he neither appeared in person nor through his counsel.
6. The learned single Judge had recorded that the facts of the case
is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant
submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in White
Washer's case would not apply to the facts of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/5
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
8. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Government
Advocate that the learned single Judge has not considered the facts of the
case for applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is without
any merits. He has also not placed any material as to how the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not applicable to the present facts of
the case.
9. We also do not find any infirmity in applying the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of the case,
therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal, hence the same is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
01.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/5
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
Writ Appeal No.1971 of 2018
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/5
