y^'i;@ ^^" (D ^-l^-"" ^' BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(S) N0. ~T\6t1 20(t3 OF 2007- PETTIONER <^-4. RESPONDENTS ,,^^,.^" \^^^^:.' V/. ^^° ./ ^.io ^Sjlfc 1 'fs K^fl^"- Bhoj Singh sidar, S/o late Shri Ghasia Ram Sidar, Aged about 63 years, R/o P.0 Dabhra Village/Tahsil Dabhra DIstric - Janjgir (Champa) (C.G.) , VERSUS 1. State of chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur.(C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director Treasury and Pension Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Agriculture officer Sakti DIstric Janjgir Champa ( C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ;r / :'4;1%^ •-•:3^ t ^t -;-;s:'% l %.5sy^v "^•^fQ^^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION tS} N0.7104 OF 2010 Petitioner Bhoj Singh Sidar Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri AJay Shrivastava, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 15th day of March, 2011) Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that after retirement of the petitioner on 28.02.2007, the recpvery of the alleged excess payment during service was ordered on 11.06.2007. The petitioner has preferred this petition on 03.12.2010.onthegroundthat the exercise of recovery of the excess payment, wtthout following due process of law and further without following the well settled principies of law, as laid downby the Supreme Court m Sahib Ram v, State of Haryana andothers1, the order has been passed,whichis vjtiated and may be quashed. On the other hand,leamed State counsel without justifying thestand, which appears to be contrary to the well settled principles oy law, opposed the petition on the groundof delay. It is made clearthat the delay is not appljcable jn case of the writ petition, as there is no provision for Itmjtatjon. However, the question of laches may be raised, ifthereis a long inordinate unexplained delay. In the case on hand, the impugned order was passed on 11.6.2007 and the petition has been filed on 03.12.2010. Thus, it cannot be held that it was inordinate long de!ay,which creates a third party interest tn 11995Supp(1)SCC18 w.-r' -i;l' '€ '^ .;.^. "m r favour ofthe some other party. Thus, the petition ofthe respondents/ State in respect of the laches is rejected. Law is well settied and having regard to the facts that desplte the law iaid down by the Supreme Court way back and thereafter by thls Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tfwari v. The State of ChhaWsgarh & oy?ers2 and V/'cfya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of ChhaWsgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in severat decisions, the authoritiesare passing the order without taking care of the well settled principles of law. In the result, the impugned order dated 11.06.2007 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with costs quantified to be a sum of Rs. 5000/-, which may be recoverable from the officer who has passed the order ignonng thewell settled Rreposition of law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge bhok 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2)MPMT 31 (CG)