1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 697 OF 2010 M/S. SATYANARAYAN MOHANLAL . -: versus :- STATE OF MAH. AND ANOTHER. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.K.Thakkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri A.V.Bhide, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2010. 1. The matter was heard earlier i.e. on 26th March, 2010 and after noticing that impugned order-sheet dated 08.01.2010 or then RRC issued subsequently on 12.01.2010 did not expressly record any reasons for quantifying a particular amount as outstanding and recoverable from the petitioner time was given to respondents to produce records to show the reasons, if any. Accordingly the records were produced and it was noticed that RRC only mentions that there are some notes separately annexed with RRC. The respondents contended that those notes contained the reasons. Time was, therefore, given to produce those notes, which did not find part of original record. In spite of grant of adjournments thereafter those notes have not been produced before this Court. 2 2. Today, again the learned A.G.P. is seeking time. It is, therefore, apparent that notes which did not form part of original record are not available. 3. It is not necessary for this Court to delve into the controversy because it has become clear that RRC has been issued mechanically without any application of mind in terms of order dated 08.01.2010. Advocate Shri Bhide for respondent No.2 has contended that in petition there is no challenge to RRC issued on 12.01.2010. He points out that said RRC is for amount of Rs.11,19,082/- and interest thereon. He, therefore, states that if RRC is challenged, as per mandate of Section 154(2A) the 50% amount is liable to be deposited by the petitioners. The learned A.G.P. also supports the order and arguments of Advocate Shri Bhide to urge that statutorily 50% of the RCC amount is liable to be deposited. 4. After hearing the parties and considering the records, I am not inclined to hold that RRC dated 12.01.2010 needed to be challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition is filed subsequently but challenge therein is to order dated 08.01.2010 and the petitioner has also shown his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs.One Lakh with the Registry of this Court. As the RRC has been issued in breach of the principles of natural justice it is apparent that the amount mentioned therein cannot be accepted to be correct. Moreover, the petitioner, here, claims to have moved for one time settlement in accordance with law. 3 5. In these circumstances, as I find that the order dated 08.01.2010 shows total non-application of mind and is in breach of the principles of natural justice, the same is quashed and set aside. 6. It is apparent that RRC issued in consequences thereof, therefore, also fails. However, the amount of Rs.One Lakh in deposit with the Registry of this Court is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent No.2 without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the matter. Similarly appropriation of the said amount of Rs.One Lakh by respondent No.2 towards the loan account of the petitioner does not in any way prejudice the contentions and rights of the petitioner in the matter. 7. The parties shall appear before respondent No.1 on 11th May, 2010 and shall abide by his further instructions in the matter. Respondent No.1 shall hear the parties and pass suitable orders in accordance with law and proceed further with the matter. 8. As the matter is old respondent No.1 shall decide the matter finally as early as possible and in any case by 31.05.2010. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. JUDGE RR