Shakuntala Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8384 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12549/2019

Smt. Shakuntala Meghwal W/o Shri Mohan Lal Meghwal, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Panchayat Bhangwa, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.

3. The Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Ms. Surbhi Bissa for Mr. K.K. Bissa

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

28/06/2022

1. Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the

outset, submits that the basic contention in the present writ

petition is that 'no recovery can be made without affording

opportunity of hearing', and in identical bunch of cases a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aatma Ram Vs.

State of Raj. & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17865/2019

decided on 02.12.2021 has ruled in favour of the petitioner(s).

2. Mr. Bhaleria however points out that while deciding the case

of Aatma Ram(supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court had

given a liberty to the respondents to initiate an enquiry in terms of

Section 111 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to

determine the liability of the petitioner as per law. But, in

(2 of 2) [CW-12549/2019]

petitioner's case such proceedings have been initiated and order of

recovery has been passed, which is subject matter of another writ

petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17865/2019) in which an

interim order has already been passed by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court per-viam order dated 02.12.2019.

3. Ms. Surbhi Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of

facts and law.

4. While noticing above distinction, the present writ petition is

allowed in terms of the judgment dated 02.12.2021, passed in the

case of Aatma Ram(supra). Impugned orders of recovery dated

01.07.2019 and 12.07.2019 (Annex.-P8 and P9 respectively),

which have been issued without providing opportunity of hearing,

are hereby quashed.

5. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 7-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)