Baijnath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2159 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8582 of 2020
     ======================================================

Baijnath Prasad, Son of Late Ramkewal Mahto, Resident of Village-Bihar Bigha, Police Station-Dalmianagar, District-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Health Education and Family Welfare, New Secre-

tariat, Patna.

3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Civil-Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad.

5. The In-Charge Medical officer, Primary Health Center, Deo District-Au-

rangabad.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG IX Mr. A.K. Verma, AC to AAG IX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the fol-

lowing reliefs:-

"For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appro- priate writ/order/direction to quash the letter No. 73 dated 28.01.2020 (Annex- ure-11) issued by the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Deo, District- Aurangabad (Respondent No.

5) whereby and where under the peti- tioner has been directed to deposit the recovery amount of Rs. 14,22,706/- (Fourteen Lakhs Twenty-two Thousand Seven Hundred Six) only, which amount has been paid by the Respondent to the petitioner for payment of consequential Patna High Court CWJC No.8582 of 2020 dt.18-04-2022

benefit. And/or Pass such other order or orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper."

Short question for consideration in the present case is

before issuing impugned order and directing petitioner to

deposit/recovery amount is after due hearing of the petitioner or

not?

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that

the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity of hearing be-

fore passing of the impugned communication dated 28.01.2020

(Annexure-11). Such order was passed by the In-charge Medical

Officer, Primary Health Centre, Deo, District-Aurangabad, i.e., re-

spondent no. 5.

The concerned authority is hereby directed to examine

as to whether fifth respondent is competent to issue such commu-

nication to the petitioner or not?

On the sole ground that the petitioner has not been pro-

vided opportunity of hearing, the present petition stands allowed

and the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure-11) issued by

the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Deo, Au-

rangabad stands set aside reserving liberty to the competent au-

thority to proceed in accordance with law after giving ample op-

portunity of hearing including issuance of show cause notice and Patna High Court CWJC No.8582 of 2020 dt.18-04-2022

receipt of petitioner's explanation for the proposed recovery or

deposit amount. Such action shall be taken within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, if

any recovery is effected the same shall be refunded to the peti-

tioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

this order.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR                 NAFR
CAV DATE                 N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date        N/A