The judgment establishes the principle that authorities must provide specific allegations and adequate opportunity to the affected parties before taking any recovery action, and that alternative remedies under the scheme may not be a bar to seeking judicial intervention.

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions are decided by a common order, as the issue involved, is identical.

2. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19148/2017 (M/s.Quality Life Care Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is taken as a lead case.

3. The petitioner in the petition has pleaded that the State of Rajasthan introduced Rajashtan Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter read as ‘the Scheme of 2008’) to strengthen Institutional support of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise’s and as such, the scheme was notified in the Gazette Notification dated 13.02.2009 and the same was made operative with effect from 14.02.2008.

4. The petitioner-firm was manufacturing and also providing services of Diagnostic Centre, Pathology Laboratory and other related work.

5. The petitioner-company had also got ISO Certificate and in acquiring the said certificate, the Company had incurred total expenditure of Rs.2,37,485/-. The petitioner-company got a certificate regarding expenditure incurred by it in acquiring ISO Certificate through a Chartered Accountant.

6. The petitioner-company applied in the scheme of 2008 for grant of subsidy and the matter was placed before the Committee constituted under the Scheme and accordingly, after considering the eligibility of the petitioner-company, the petitioner-company was granted subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. The petitioner has pleaded that the Sanctioning Authority issued the requisite cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-in favour of the petitioner-Company and the amount of subsidy given to the petitioner-company was duly appropriated by it as per the Scheme.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued the impugned order dated 08.01.2016, whereby it was communicated that Auditor General during Audit found that the amount paid to the petitioner-company was irregular and as such, the petitioner-Company was asked to deposit the amount of Rs.2,42,257/-(Rs.1,72,425/- Principal + Rs.69,832/- interest).

9. The petitioner has pleaded that after issuance of impugned order dated 08.01.2016, the Additional Collector (Recovery), Jaipur issued a Notification dated 23.06.2017 under Rule 24 (Section 229) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter read as ‘the Act of 1956’) asking the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount, failing which the movable and immovable property of the Company was to be attached.

10. The petitioner-company made a representation to the Authorities and submitted that they were entitled for subsidy as per Scheme of 2008 and due certificate was given with the investment by the petitioner-company and as such, the entire exercise of the respondents to effect recovery of subsidy amount, was legal and against the Scheme of 2008.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice has nowhere discussed as what was the objection, which was raised by the Audit Team and without communicating the exact reason about ineligibility or irregularity in getting the subsidy amount, the respondents could not have proceeded against the petitioners.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondents not only issued recovery notices against the petitioners of recovering the amount but simultaneously also initiated the proceedings under the Act of 1956.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that act of the respondents is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never made aware as what wrong has been committed by them and further, certificate which was required under the scheme were duly given to the Authorities and the Committee which was constituted under the Scheme after applying its due mind granted the amount of subsidy to the petitioners and as such, without any proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned actions could not have been taken.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on a judgment passed by the Principal Bench of th