I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il W r it Pet it ion No.33 9 4 / 2 0 0 3 M/ s Digvijaya Marble and Granites Pvt. Ltd. Ver sus State of Rajasthan and Others Dat e of Or der ::: 1 1 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Vinodi Lal Mathur, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ashish Jain, Addl. Govt. Counsel and Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Counsel for respondents # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that subsidy to the tune of Rs.6.93 lac was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner in the year 1992 and all of a sudden, vide letter dated 5th October, 2002 (Annexure-2), the respondent Corporation directed the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of subsidy, without notice or affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him in this regard. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No.3 but in the entire reply it has not been mentioned that any notice was given before passing the order to recover the amount of subsidy, to the petitioner. The case of the respondent No.3 is that the Accountant General vide audit report for the year 1995-96 recommended to recover the amount of Rs.6.93 lac paid as subsidy to the petitioner and only on that basis the letter was issued to the petitioner that the said amount is recoverable from him and he should deposit the same. Without going into other aspects of the matter, I find that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed only on one ground that action of the respondent in recovering the amount of Rs.6.93 lac, which was paid towards subsidy, is violative of principles of natural justice. The subsidy was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner in the year 1992 and after a gap of 10 years, may be on the basis of audit report, the amount could not have been recovered without issuing a notice to show cause to the petitioner showing the violation of any term and condition of the subsidy scheme or any inaction of the petitioner which can be said to be contrary to the provisions of any law. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th October, 2002 (Annexure-2), and subsequent orders relating to recovery of subsidy amount are quashed and set-aside. The respondents will be at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner for recovery of subsidy amount and after affording him an opportunity may pass necessary order. Cost is made easy. ( Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ / I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR ORDER IN S.B. Civ il Misc. St ay Applicat ion No.27 26 / 2 0 03 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3394/ 2003 M/ s Digvijaya Marble and Granites Pvt. Ltd. Ver sus State of Rajasthan and Others Dat e of Or der ::: 1 1 .0 4 .2 0 0 8 Present Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain Shri Vinodi Lal Mathur, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ashish Jain, Addl. Govt. Counsel and Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Counsel for respondents # # # # By t h e Cou r t : - In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. ( Nar endr a Ku m ar Jain) J. / / Jaiman/ /