1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1273/2011. Shri ShamraoChinduji Satpute -VERSUS- 1.The Chief Executive Officer and another. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2011. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri J.S. Mokadam, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri V.A. Thakre, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. By consent Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith. Petitioner was the Secretary of a Committee constituted for supply of potable water to residents of village Burkoni, Tahsil Hinganghat, 2 District Wardha. An order dated 16.07.2010 has been served upon him for alleged irregularities in completion/construction undertaken for that water supply and total amount of Rs. 1,29,989/- is directed to be recovered from him. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner states that accordingly R.R.C. has also been issued, but then further proceedings have not been taken so far. He is relying upon the agreement filed as Annexure-III entered on 18.07.2006 between the parties. He contends that the terms and conditions of the said agreement are not looked into while ordering the recovery. On merits, he states that land for said scheme has been made available free of cost by petitioner and the technical guidance and directions were to be issued by the Authorities mentioned in that agreement and it was not the responsibility of the present petitioner. It is 3 submitted that the petitioner was dependent upon such certificate/directions by the technical experts mentioned therein. He has also urged that without giving petitioner an opportunity, directly recovery has been ordered. Shri Mokadam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. representing respondent no.2 are supporting the impugned order. According to Shri Mokadam, learned counsel, the petitioner was given due notice and spot was inspected in his presence. The irregularities were then noticed and as petitioner has accepted those irregularities, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter final order has been passed. After hearing respective counsel and after perusing the written submissions filed by respondent no.1, it has become clear that the alleged show cause notice dated 16.07.2010 is not 4 a show cause notice, but a final order of recovery. Moreover, the purpose to visit the spot is also not clear and it is also not apparent whether the petitioner was aware of the said purpose. We have also perused the alleged agreement dated 18.07.2006. Shri Mokadam, learned counsel has contended that it was only a draft agreement and entire agreement is not produced before this Court. In view of the facts which have emerged, we do not find it necessary to delve more into the controversy. Interest of justice can be met with by directing that appropriate show cause notice be served upon the petitioner, by giving opportunity to petitioner to reply to it, and after extending that opportunity, respondent can proceed further in the matter. Only for this purpose and without observing anything on the merits of the controversy, we quash and set aside the order dated 16.07.2010. 5 Respondent no.1 shall serve upon petitioner appropriate show cause notice within a period of three weeks from today and petitioner shall file his reply thereto within further period of three weeks. Thereafter, respondent no.1 shall hear the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law, as early as possible and in any case by 30.11.2011. The recovery ordered, is for some irregularities and without holding that the petitioner is responsible for the same, we therefore, direct the petitioner to show his bonafides by not creating any third party interest or by not creating any encumbrance on his properties till 30.11.2011. With these directions and observations, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd