IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 28099 of 2005 BETWEEN: G. Kista Goud S/o. Late Laxminarayana Goud, R/o Ismailkhanpet, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh General Administration, Vigilance & Enforcement, Department Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents by issuing impugned notice No. AE/DB/OPC Rec. /1163/2000, dated 8-3-2004 ordered recovery of Rs. 3,23,854-52 after lapse of 7years, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for submitting the explanation or participating enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent, by issuing impugned notice is illegal, improper and void and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently by setting a side the impugned notice, and pass such further or other order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 7019 of 2006 BETWEEN: V. Goura Goud, S/o Ella Goud, R/o Shankaraampet (A) Mandal, Medak District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration, Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Medak District. 3 Chief Engineer Quality Control & Vigilance, Panchayat Depot, Swamy Ramananda Thirtha Buildings, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 4 Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. 5 Executive Engineer, Quality Control & Vigilance, Hyderabad. RR 3to5 impleaded as per court order dt. 28-12-2006 in WPMP 33542 of 2006 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents by issuing impugned notice No.AE/DB/OPC.Rec/1163/2000 dt.4-12-2002 ordered recovery of Rs.5,20,785.00 after laps of 8 years, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for submitting the explanation or participating enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent, by issuing impugned notice and proposing deduct the said amount is some there bills is illegal, improper and void and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently by setting aside the impugned notice, and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions have been filed questioning the recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent/Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Medak District. 2. In WP.No.28099 of 2005 the second respondent issued a notice dated 08.03.2004 alleging that the petitioner was the contractor for execution of the Patancheruvu PWD road to Solakpally via Armoor under SSRM Grant for an amount of Rs.19 Lakhs pursuant to the agreement dated 20.10.1997 and on inspection of the same, the Chief Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control, submitted a report pointing out certain deficiencies in the quality of the work done by the petitioner and proposed to recover a sum of Rs.3,23,854.52 ps. 3. In WP.No.7019 of 2006 the second respondent issued a notice dated 04.12.2002 relating to the recovery of a sum of Rs.5,20,782/- towards the deficiencies found in the quality of work done by the petitioner relating to providing BT surface on road from PWD road to Jukkal via Cheekode sanctioned under SRRM grant pursuant to the agreement No.DB5/29/95-96 dated 30.09.1995. 4. Petitioners submit that they have executed the work within the stipulated time without any deficiencies. In fact, the EMD amount was also refunded to them and after long lapse of maintenance period, the impugned notices have been issued without giving any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity. 5. Counter has not been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Counters have been filed by the first respondent alone stating that as per the orders of the Government empowering the Vigilance and Enforcement Department to inspect the execution of work carried on by the contractors entrusted by the Executive Engineers, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department inspected the work executed by the petitioners and pointed out certain defects. 6. There cannot be any grievance to the petitioners insofar as the inspection made and pointing out defects is concerned, their only grievance should be whether the Executive Engineers can initiate recovery proceedings straightaway without furnishing particular of the defects and deficiencies in the quality of the work said to have been pointed out by the Vigilance Department. Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned notices go to show that show cause notice has not been issued and no particulars of the report of the Chief Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control, have been furnished to the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that issuance of impugned notices straightaway without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned notices are set aside keeping it open to the second respondent to issue show cause notice giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 24, 2008 DSK