THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27564 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner functioned as a Technical Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, for four villages, viz., C. Gollapalli, Papepalli, Mandalavaripalli and Musalikunta. Alleging that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.10,20,620.06, the Tahsildar, Pedamandayam Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, issued notice dated 05-10-2009 to the petitioner, requiring him to pay the said amount. It was mentioned that, in case the petitioner fails to pay that amount, proceedings would be initiated under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the RR Act’). The petitioner challenges the notice, on the ground that it was issued, even while the proceedings initiated against him, through show cause notice dated 17-09-1009, by the Director of District Water Management Association; are pending. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was not issued any notice, before the amount was quantified. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The impugned notice is not referable to any provision of law. At the most, it is a demand made against the petitioner, alleging that the amount mentioned therein was misappropriated. No coercive steps are indicated. The petitioner was informed that, in case he does not pay the amount, proceedings under the RR Act would be initiated. It may be true that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 17-09-2009, alleging misappropriation of amounts. Whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay any amount; would be determined therein. Much before proceedings are initiated under the RR Act, the amount has to be determined. The impugned notice is nothing, but an informal demand, without leading to any coercive, or punitive steps. In case the proceedings under the RR Act are initiated against the petitioner, he can certainly take all the defences, that are available to him. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, for want of cause of action, and it is directed that, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all defences, in case the proceedings under the RR Act are initiated against him. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-02-2010. KO