THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.27874 OF 2008 Dated 19th March, 2010 Between: Y.V.Y.Sarma …Petitioner And Government of India and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.M.Subhan, SC for Central Govt. The Court made the following ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 11-11-2008, of respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner was called upon to return the amount of Rs.3,690/- allegedly received by him in violation of the terms of Standardised Agency System (SAS) Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, advanced two-fold submissions, namely; (1) that before issuing the impugned order, the respondent No.4 has not afforded an opportunity of being heard and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and (2) that the respondents having got the benefit of the deposits in excess of Rs.50,000/- cannot deny the commission to the petitioner on such excess deposits. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been required to remit back the sum of Rs.3,690/- allegedly received on the investments made in excess of Rs.50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that no prior notice has been issued by respondent No.4 before calling upon the petitioner to remit the above- mentioned amount. In my opinion, principles of natural justice require giving of such a notice before passing an order adverse to the petitioner’s interests. Therefore, I find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the second contention, the respondents will have to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an order. If an adverse order is passed by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to question the same. Until then, it is not necessary for this Court to give a finding on the second contention advanced by the learned counsel. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation raising all legally sustainable grounds against the proposed recovery of the commission received by him. The petitioner shall file such a representation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same objectively, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th March, 2010 lur