The failure to conduct adequate inquiry before initiating recovery proceedings violates procedural due process in administrative actions under welfare schemes.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order and direction, set aside Ext.P4 and P7 and all further proceedings thereunder against the petitioners ;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry about the allegations in Ext.P4 notice and provide details to the petitioners at the earliest and kept in abeyance all coercive proceedings under Ext.P7 notice till then;

iii) to number the case by dispensing the translation of the documents produced by the petitioner in vernacular language;

and iv) pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice” (SIC)

2. The petitioners constructed a residential building in 3.50 cents of property bequeathed to them by the deceased husband of 1^st petitioner, availing aid of Rs.4,00,000/- under the PMAY scheme during 2018 and they are residing in that building is the submission. Thereafter, Ext.P4 notice was issued to them alleging that they have another residential building and financial aid under the above scheme was availed by suppressing the same and they have to refund the amount along with the interest. It is the definite case of the petitioners that they are not having any other residential house as alleged in Ext.P4. It is also the case of the petitioner that no details of such alleged residential building in the name of the petitioners is mentioned in Ext.P4 except a vague allegation. It is also submitted that, though the petitioners requested to conduct a proper enquiry based on Ext.P5, the same is also denied as per Ext.P6. Without such details of alleged residential building of the petitioners and without any proper enquiry, respondents are initiating recovery proceedings as against the petitioners by Ext.P7 is the grievance of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

4. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. It will be better to extract paragraph Nos.6 and 13 of the above affidavit:

“6. It is submitted that the Vigilance Department (VACB) conducted a quick check based on the complaint filed by one Sri.Raghu.S against the house construction benefit given to the 1st petitioner under the PMAY(U)-Life Housing Scheme. In the vigilance quick check, it was found that while the 1^st petitioner obtained Rs.4 lakhs as a beneficiary, under the PMAY(U)-Life Housing Scheme and while the construction of house in Anayara at Kadakampally Village was in progress, another house was constructed in the year 2019, owned by the 1^st petitioner in Oruvathilkotta at Kadakampally village without any financial aid from the Government. The Vigilance Quick- Check Report dated 15.06.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(a). As per the said report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, the benefit under the PMAY(U)-Life Housing Scheme was availed by the 1^st petitioner by suppressing the fact that she is having another property in her name. It is recommended by the Vigilance based on the clause(4) incorporated in the agreement, the benefit of Rs.4 lakhs availed by the 1st petitioner is to be recovered with interest and an FIR has to be registered through the local Police.

13. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the 1^st petitioner based on clause (4) of Ext P3 agreement which clearly states that the beneficiary will be removed from the list upon violation of any condition in the con