HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR D!VIS!ON BENCH €6WKM: HGWELE SHE H.L. EATTU, CJ. & HON’BLE SHR! V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. $ET§TIONER Writ Petition No 1306 of 2001 Dharam Piakash Agrawai, Son of Shri Ghanshyamdas AgrawaL Aged adult, resident of Pendra Chetan Chowk, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Public Works Department, Through its Secretary, Secretariat, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Superintending Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, ‘Circie BiiaspurIPendra, Biiaspur, Chhaftisgarh Executive Engineer. ~Pubiic Works Department, Pendra Division, Pendra Road, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Accounts Officer, Divisional Office, Public Works Department, Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS 1. ii; Q Present: Shri V.R.Tiwari, counsei for the petitioner. Shri N.K.Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for the State. oRAL ORDER reassed on 15‘“ March, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. The petitioner is a contractor. ‘He has executed certain works awarded to him bythe respondents. (2) issued Based on the Technical Auditor’s report, the respondents had a demand notice dated 22—9-2000, inter alia, directing the petitioner tc refund a sum of R53? ,97,411f~‘ Even before the petitioner could approach this Court questioning the aforesaid notice, respondents have already recovered the saici amount from the petitioner. (3) Shri V.R.Tiwari, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that under one of the ciauses in the agreement, before recoveries are made from the contractor, the contractor shouici be issued a ehow cause notice and also the seme. shouid be done within a particular time frame. Since the respondents had not issued show cause notice and had recovered the amount before the time prescribed under the agreement, the demand notice requires to be quashed. (4) Per contra, Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General wouid submit that since the respondents have already recovered the amount mentioned in the demand notice, a post decisional hearing may be given to the petitioner. Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General is very fair and requires to be accepted. Now, the respondents have already recovered a sum of Rs.1,97,41 1/~ pursuant to the demand notice issued by them, the only relief that can loe granted to the petitioner is to provide him a post decisional hearing by permitting him to fiie his objections and participatein the enquiry that the respondents may hold, against the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. (5) The petitioner is at liberty to take up ali such contentions which are available to him including the contentions raised in this writ ro mam before the respondents — Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. J,M m Sd/. Wl ll . V.K. Shrivastava r, " Sdl- Judge