THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4817 OF 2010 Dated 3rd March, 2010 Between: N.Hemasunderam …Petitioner And Government of India and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Vijay for Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.Venkat Raju for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Assistant Solicitor General The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to set aside letter dated 30th April, 2009 of respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner was called upon to return the amount of Rs.27,460/- allegedly received by him in violation of the terms of Standardised Agency System (SAS) Scheme. At the hearing, Sri M.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced twofold submissions, namely; (1) that before issuing the impugned letter, the respondents have not afforded an opportunity of being heard and therefore the impugned letter is in violation of principles of natural justice and (2) that the respondents having got the benefit of the deposits in excess of Rs.50,000/- cannot deny the commission to the petitioner on such excess deposits. A perusal of the impugned letter shows that while requiring the petitioner to remit back the sum of Rs.27,460/- allegedly received on the investments made in excess of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner has been asked to submit his representation. In my opinion, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s representation first before calling upon the petitioner to remit the amount in the event his representation is found not satisfactory. Therefore, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the second contention, the respondents will have to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an order. If an adverse order is passed by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to question the same. Until then, it is not necessary for this Court to give a finding on the second contention advanced by the learned counsel. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned letter is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation raising all the legally sustainable grounds against the proposed recovery of the commission received by him. The petitioner shall file such a representation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same objectively, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd March, 2010 vrn