IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20390 OF 2005 Between: P.Muna Swamy … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor District and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20390 OF 2005 O R D E R : The petitioner, a former Sarpanch of D.M.Puram Grampanchayat, Karvetipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, filed the present Writ Petition assailing the proceedings dated 15.8.2005/20.8.2005 passed by the District Collector, Chittoor District, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,53,703/- from him as per the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for brevity “the Act of 1864”). The petitioner served as the Sarpanch of D.M.Puram Gram panchayat from the year 2001 up to the year 2005, when he was removed from the post on the basis of certain allegations. Under notice dated 01-11-2004, the District Collector, Chittoor District, called upon the petitioner to submit the record with regard to the amount allegedly withdrawn by him while in office, amounting to Rs.2,53,703/-. Responding thereto, the petitioner submitted as many as eight documents to the In-Charge Panchayat Secretary. However, the impugned proceedings passed by the District Collector, Chittoor do not reflect consideration of the records submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 01-11-2004. Further, no notice was separately issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit an explanation prior to the decision taken to recover the amount from him. Reference in this regard may be made to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in B.C.MULAJKAR, V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH ([1]): “It is an elementary principle that principles of natural justice require that the person who is sought to be fastened with a liability should first be apprised of the facts on which the liability is sought to be based and he should be given an opportunity to make his representations in that behalf. In our view the expression “sums due” does imply an obligation on the part of the State Government when the liability is disputed, to hold a proper enquiry and furnish the person from whom the amount is sought to be recovered, the full particulars or facts, hold an enquiry, consider the representations and first determine the liability or otherwise for the sum said to be due.” The case on hand reflects that the respondents did not resort to the procedure adverted to by the Division Bench in the above decision before seeking to pin the liability upon the petitioner and recover the sums allegedly due from him as unilaterally decided by them. The impugned proceedings dated 15-08-2005/20-08-2005 are accordingly set aside. It shall however be open to the respondents to initiate action afresh, if permitted by law, in due accordance with the procedure prescribed. The Writ Petition is allowed, subject to the above observation. No order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 03-02-2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20390 OF 2005 February 3, 2011 [1] AIR 1971 ANDHRA PRADESH 169