IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8615/2008 Decided on:21.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Balak Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A-1 dated 18.4.2002 whereby he has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,500/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard before the issuance of Annexure A-1. Since the recoveries were being effected from the petitioner, he ought to have been issued show cause notice. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-1 dated 18.4.2002 is quashed and set aside. In normal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 circumstances, respondent-State ought to have been granted opportunity to proceed with in the matter in accordance with law, however, since the petitioner has retired from service, the proceedings are closed. No. costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.12.2010 *awasthi*