,C7\ r'^^^^""...- „..,-' ^^'^,:.....---" ^!"'\.^^3-;-"" \^/'vs' Aa s" r BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARHAT BILASRUR Writ Petition No, l^^f s::-, 2006 PETITIONER Nathu Lal Verma son of late Mohan Lal Verma, aged about 52 years, resident of Wadraf Nagar, District Surguja [C.G.] yERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Water Resources Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, G.E. Road, Raipur [C.G.]. The Collector, Surguja, ; DistrictSurguja [C.G.]. ; W'Aui Re-s»uAtt4 ; The Executive Engineer,^Public -Qifwjbw^t: •Wefte—TOepartment—[SW- Division No.2, Ambikapur, District Surguja [C.G.]. <5.(.-C^^4] The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources, Sub Division, Wadraf Nagar, District Surguja [C.G.]. PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITTION OF INDIA i WRIT PmTION N0. 188/200S Nafhulal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh aad others SB: Honlile Mr. Justice K. A©iihotrt,Vacation Judge Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, cou&sel for the petiAioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advoca-te General for respoiideitts/State. (5th June, 2006} The followiiie order of the Court was A®sihotri,Vacation Judge. In the present petition recovery ofRs.6,08, 264,/- (Rupees six lacs eight thousand two hundred and scety four only) by fhe rc'spondents by oider dated 14,/12/2005 (Annexure P|' 14] is under chaUenge. Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sangpeta Mishia, counsel for petitioner siibinits that rccovery of Rs.6,08,264/- at the rate of Rs.3,000,/- per monfh has been dirccted to be recovered witti effect from. December, 2005 (Annexure P/14) wifhoiit holding any cnqiiiiy or aflbriing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, this onler is punitive aad meets with civfl consequences and as siich, no onler for recover;7 of the amoiuit without proper enquiry or without providing any opportunity to fhe petitioner for puttitig fonvard his case, be passed. :' -~ :s. 3) Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Deputy Advocate General with Shri A.S. KacMiawaha, leamed Govt. Advocate, on fhe contrary subinits that it is ttLe case of fmancial loss caused by fhe petitioner to the Goverument aiid fhe enquiry has already been mitiated for the said. purpose. 4| Be that as it may, till enquiry is concluded, holding fhat the petitioner was responsible for causing finaucial loss to the public exchequer, the liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner for making tlie payment of the said aiaouat. S| For the reasons stated above, th^ petition is allowed. Hovrever, the respondents/authority are at liberty to take appropriate steps for recove^ of fhe amount, if in the enOiUJry it is foiind fhat the petitioner was responsible for causing loss to fhe public exchequer. 6| In the facts ofthe case, no order as to costs. Consequeatty, I.A.Nos. 5084^2006 for zu-gent hearingand 5085/2006 for hearing during suminer vacatioa and M.W.P. No. 169/2006 for grant ofad-iaterim. reKefstaad disposed of Sd/- \ Vacation Judge Raju < ="r-~1