Smt. Guntuku Suramma and two others v. Executive Director, Srikakulam and three others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Collector dated 21-07-2005 the writ petition is dismissed
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. Guntuku Suramma and two others … Petitioners
And A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its District Collector, Executive Director, Srikakulam and three others … Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 19039 OF 2005
ORDER:
Though the matter was listed for hearing interlocutory matters, at the request of both the counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order. In the writ petition, the petitioners questioned the recovery notice issued by the A.P. State Housing Corporation, dated 30-07-2005, to recover an amount of Rs.8,000/- from them. A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., has formed a scheme for giving financial assistance to the weaker sections of the society for construction of residential houses. Initially, the petitioners were identified in the list, but, however, subsequently in view of the complaint, enquiries were conducted and it was found that the petitioners are not eligible and fit for the scheme for the purpose of getting financial assistance. Based on the same, further orders are passed by the Collector, Srikakulam vide proceedings dated 21-07-2005. Consequent to the orders of the District Collector, the impugned notice was issued to recover the amount, which was disbursed to the petitioners towards financial assistance.
It is the case of the petitioners that the said notice was issued without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. But on the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that in view of the complaint, enquiries were conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the petitioners are not eligible and in view of the same, their eligibility was cancelled and consequential notices were issued to recover the amount already disbursed. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that in similar facts of the case, earlier a writ petition was filed before this Court questioning the recovery notice dated 30-07-2005 and this Court has dismissed the said writ petition and the same is also confirmed in the writ appeal by the Division Bench of this Court. Earlier, the said writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the notice for recovery is consequent to the orders of the Collector dated 21-07-2005 and in the absence of questioning such order of cancellation, the petitioners cannot question the recovery notice.
Operative part
Even in this case also, the petitioners are only challenging the recovery notice. In view of the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19010 of 2005 and inasmuch as the impugned notice is only consequential to the orders of the Collector dated 21-07-2005, I do not find any valid ground for grant of relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Keeping open to the petitioners to challenge the orders of the Collector dated 21-07-2005 the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dt: 27-09-2007 Rns _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11100 OF 2007 Dated: 09-02-2007 RNS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Collector dated 21-07-2005 the writ petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Sep 2007. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.