Back
M. S. KARNIK, VALMIKI MENEZES
Micaela Gracy De Oliveira – Appellant
Versus
Corporation of City of Panaji – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim was valid under the scheme. (Para 1) |
| 2. petition seeks to quash recovery of educational allowance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments on the interpretation of the cea scheme. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observation on delay and audit basis. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. principle against recovery without misrepresentation. (Para 9) |
| 6. court quashes the impugned memorandum. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Per Valmiki Menezes, J.
1. Heard Mr Abhijeet Kamat for the Petitioner, Mr Somnath Karpe for Respondent No.1 and Mr Sarvadnya D. Patil for Respondent No.2. Rule was issued in this matter on 25.04.2022, when interim relief granted by order dated 13.04.2022 was confirmed and the matter was placed for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a memorandum dated 14.07.2021 bearing No.218/01/2018/2019/CCP/Accts/2021-22/251 issued by the Respondent No.1, the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP). By the impugned memorandum, the CCP sought to recover an amount of Rs.48,000/- paid to the Petitioner as a Children’s Educational Allowance (
Payments made under a reimbursement scheme cannot be recovered without clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, particularly when based on an erroneous interpretation of eligibility criteria.
Educational institutions can claim fee reimbursement when scholarship payments are improperly withheld, regardless of student actions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
