IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 276 of 2003 (M/S) G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar Through Vice Chancellor ..……… Petitioner. Versus V.S. Agrawal and another ……… Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The University has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the District Consumer Protection Forum whereby it has directed to refund a sum of Rs. 66,330/- alongwith interest @ Rs. 10% per annum for wrongful deduction from the pension of the opposite party. It transpires that the opposite party retired on 30th June, 1990 and was receiving his pension. All of a sudden, after ten years, the petitioner issued a recovery certificate of Rs. 66.330/- alleging that as an Accountant, he had wrongly passed a bill. The opposite party, being aggrieved, approached the District Consumer Protection Forum which passed the impugned order. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved is a service dispute and such dispute could not be raised under the District Consumer Forum. Assuming that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct and that such grievance of the opposite party could not be raised nor could it be adjudicated before the Consumer Forum, nonetheless, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The court will only issue a writ when it finds that there is a palpable error in the order. In the present case, the Court finds that some bills were passed in the year 1985. The 2 opposite party had retired in the year 1990 and recovery was being made in the year 2000. The court further finds that the recovery of this amount was being made without issuance of a notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondents. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that such recovery could not be made which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the light of the aforesaid, the court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 14th September, 2010 Shi