HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P. No. 26742 of 2005 DATED: 24.02.2011 Between: P. Lakshmi Devi .. Petitioner And 1. Collector & District Magistrate 2. Mandal Revenue Officer .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she was the President-cum- Chairman of Vidya Committee during the period 1997-2001 of a School situated at Parlapalle village, Yemmalganur Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, the Government sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of a building of Upper Primary School, and the amount was kept in the joint account of the petitioner and the Head Master. Later, the construction work was completed and the details of the expenditure incurred were intimated by the Head Master to the District Coordinator. She further states that the 1st respondent-Collector and District Magistrate addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent-M.R.O. directing him to recover a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner by issuing demand notice in her favour on the ground that she withdrew excess amount pertaining to the funds for construction of the school building. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 2nd respondent- MRO without issuing her any notice, passed the proceedings dated 01.08.2005 in Form No.1 under Section 8 of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 demanding her to pay the amount, which action, according to her, is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed counter affidavit admitting that the impugned proceedings were issued without there being any enquiry with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds. Even the Additional Project Coordinator, S.S.A., Kurnool informed in his report dated 09.03.2006 that no notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to the amount of Rs.20,000/- sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Having regard to the clear admission made in the counter affidavit that nether any notice was issued nor any enquiry was conducted into the allegations made against the petitioner, before the impugned proceedings were passed, I am of the opinion that the action of the 2nd respondent-M.R.O. in not following the due procedure before passing the impugned proceedings, is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer. However, it is left open to the respondents to take necessary action against the petitioner only after issuing notice to her and considering the objections if any. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 24.02.2011 bcj