1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8028/2008 Abu Road Krya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 08.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, Dy. Government Counsel. ... The petitioner a Co-operative Society has preferred this petition for writ giving challenge to letter/order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sirohi intimating the petitioner regarding recovery of a sum of Rs.3,50,368/- and further to deposit the remaining dues expeditiously. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that before making any recovery for government dues, it was obligatory for the respondents either to proceed under the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 or to proceed as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. In the instant matter, no such procedure at all was adopted. In reply to the writ petition, the stand of the respondents is that on inspection of the petitioner's Society, certain mis- 2. management in supply system was noticed and it was also found after a detailed enquiry that mis-appropriation in a tune of Rs.20.18 lacs was made. Looking to all these facts, a sum of Rs.3,50,368/- was detained from the claimed payment of the petitioner and further a direction was given for depositing the remaining amount. The admitted fact is that before effecting recovery, neither the procedure prescribed under the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 nor the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act to make recovery was adopted. No adequate details are also given by the respondents regarding the enquiry, on basis of which mis-appropriation in a tune of Rs.20.80 lacs was determined. It is well-settled that if, any loss is caused to the government funds or if anybody is held guilty for mis- appropriation, then before reaching at such conclusion, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given and in the instant matter holding of such proceedings is conspicuously absent. It is also an admitted position that the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.3,50,368/- without resorting to the procedure prescribed either under the Public Demand Recovery Act or under the Land Revenue Act. In such circumstance the determination of the amount of the alleged mis-appropriation as well as recovery made for a sum of Rs.3,50,368/- is in violation of the principles 3. of natural justice. Accordingly the contents of letter dated 22/8/2008 (Annex.1) relating to mis-appropriation of the amount by the petitioner and recovery of sum of Rs.3,50,368/- is not proper and, as such, is quashed. The petition for writ stands allowed in the terms aforesaid, however, it is left open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law to determine the amount said to be mis-appropriated by the petitioner and further to make recovery, if any mis-appropriation of funds is established. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Sanjay/-