-1- D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.807/2006 (Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 07.08.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. L.R.Choudhary for the appellant. Mr. B.L.Bhati, Additional Government Advocate. BY THE COURT : (PER MAJMUDAR,J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. B.L.Bhati waives service of notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Though, notice on respondent No.4 has been duly served, but nobody appeared on his behalf, therefore, the matter is decided ex party against him. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. By filing this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2006, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the stay application submitted by the present appellant. The writ petition filed by the present appellant is pending before the learned Single Judge. The appellant has filed the writ petition challenging the recovery -2- notices Annexures 15 and 17 to the said writ petition. The said notices were issued to the appellant by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Luni on the ground that even though the advance was sanctioned prima facie for certain development work but the work was not completed and the appellant being the Sarpanch, was asked to make payment of certain amount by the said notices. The said notices were challenged by the appellant on various grounds, however, the learned Single vacated the stay order, against which, this special appeal has been filed. Learned counsel submitted that before recovering any amount, the appellant was required to be heard by the Department and in fact enquiry was required to be held and ultimately the said aspect was to be proved against the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that without fixing any liability on the appellant, the said notices have been issued. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr.B.L.Bhati submitted that under Section 111 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, enquiry will be initiated and, thereafter, proceedings will be taken for recovery of the amount if any. In our view, before recovering the amount, the respondents should follow the procedure prescribed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Since the appellant was not heard and there is nothing on record to show that any proceedings under Section 111 of the Act were undertaken against the appellant, in this view of the matter, we -3- allow this appeal by directing the Government to take appropriate action in accordance with law and after hearing the appellant, appropriate decision may be taken for recovery of the amount in question if any. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition itself may be treated to have become infructuous. In view of this, the writ petition has become infructuous and learned counsel undertakes to withdraw the same. In view of this, the learned counsel shall request to the learned Single Judge for withdrawal of the writ petition, as the petition itself has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. If ultimate decision is taken against the appellant, it will be open to him to challenge the same in accordance with law. In view of what is stated above, the impugned notices issued to the appellant are set aside. No order as to costs. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. ms rathore