1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8129/2011

(S.K. Khetan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

Date of Order

:

02.12.2013

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. S.P. Arora, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Soni, Dy. Govt. Counsel.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, the main grievance raised by the

petitioner is that without providing opportunity of hearing

straight away the recovery order has been passed by the

Assistant Mining Engineer, Doongarpur on 09.11.2009 whereby

the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.26,21,215/- as per

the audit report submitted by the Auditor General of Rajasthan,

Jaipur for the period 2007 – 2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

recovery order has been passed on the basis of the audit report

without providing opportunity of hearing, therefore, it is against

the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

2

receiving the impugned recovery notice dated 09.11.2009, a

detailed representation dated 27.11.2009 was filed by the

petitioner, which is placed on record as Annexure-11 in which all

the objections are raised by the petitioner but it has not been

decided by the respondents and the respondents are insisting to

make payment as per the recovery notice dated 09.11.2009,

therefore, the impugned notice may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

there is no illegality in the recovery notice issued by the

Assistant Mining Engineer, Doongarpur because as per the audit

report it is found that STP is not taken by the petitioner for using

of the ordinary sand, therefore, there is no illegality in the

notice.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this

Court is of the opinion that before issuing any notice for

recovery, it is the duty of the respondents to first issue notice to

provide opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the

notice is issued for recovery but in this case, no notice is given to

the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer, Mining Department,

Doongarpur before the notice of recovery, straight away on the

basis of the audit report, the petitioner has been directed to

deposit Rs.26,21,215/-. The petitioner raised objection before

3

the respondent Assistant Engineer, Mining Department,

Doongapur by way of filing representation.

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with

the direction to the Assistant Mining Engineer, Mining

Department, Doongarpur to consider all the objections taken by

the petitioner in the representation against the notice of

recovery dated 09.11.2009 and after providing opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner decide the representation strictly in

accordance with law for the recovery of the amount as per the

audit report. It is made clear that before deciding the objections

against the amount of recovery, no recovery shall be made from

the petitioner.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.

arun