IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11167 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Lalchand Uraon S/O Late Bigo Uraon R/O Vill.- Gawalpara, P.O. Gawalpara, P.S. Chhatapur, Distt.- Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Supaul, Distt.- Supaul 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, Distt.- Supaul 5. The Circle Officer, Triveniganj, Distt.- Supaul .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. V.K.Singh Mr. Pankaj Kr.Singh 1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 15-11-2011 The writ application was filed nearly one and a half years ago. No counter affidavit has been filed till date. In the nature of the relief sought no useful purpose is going to be served by adjourning the matter for a counter affidavit. The Court therefore disposes the writ application. The relief sought is for quashing of the order dated 26.5.2010 at Annexure-3 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,30,750.00 stated to be outstanding from the advance given to him in view of the objections pointed out by the auditors. The petitioner contends that out of the aforesaid Patna High Court CWJC No.11167 of 2010 (2) dt.15-11-2011 2 outstanding he has already deposited a sum of Rs.81,000.00 on 26.5.2010 itself in the Bank and by a written explanation dated 28.5.2010/21.6.2010 has furnished detailed information with regard to the adjusting and expenditure of the remaining amount. The submission is that an audit objection is neither an allegation nor a proof, but is a matter for further enquiry when the objections may stand satisfied or may not, on which shall depend the further course of action. If an audit objection has been raised with regard to outstandings against the petitioner and he claims to have deposited a certain amount and furnished an explanation with regard to the expenditure of the remaining amount, surely, his defence is first required to be considered. The question of effecting any recovery without considering his defence and disposing it off by a non-reasoned and non- speaking order simply does not arise. The order dated 25.5.2010 is therefore directed to be treated as a show cause notice, replied to by the petitioner on 28.5.2010/21.6.2010. The respondents are required to dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondents cannot rely on any material not furnished to the petitioner first alongwith an opportunity to defend. Patna High Court CWJC No.11167 of 2010 (2) dt.15-11-2011 3 Needless to state that the question of any coercive action against the petitioner under the notice dated 25.5.2010 till the time that his defence is not considered and disposed off in accordance with law simply does not arise and is prohibited. The application is disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)