Samiti, Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi (Raj.) Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

Order 29/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Nainwa by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain recovery orders were passed against the petitioner vide order dated 23.03.2023 and 14.02.2025 and the same were assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5857/2025. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 with clear and specific [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (2 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation in the office of the respondents, which has been decided in a cursory manner without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide impugned order dated

03.06.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner appeared before the respondents on 03.06.2025 and on the very same day the copy of the enquiry report was supplied by the respondents and without hearing the stand of the petitioner and without considering the defence of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner asking the petitioner to deposit the recovery amount. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order has been passed in contravention to the order passed by this Court on 23.04.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5857/2025.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 with the following observations and directions:- “1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “(i) by an appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned recovery notice dated 23.3.2023 (Annex-8) and Recovery notice dated 14.02.2025 (Annex-13) as well as enquiry report [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (3 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] dated 2.12.2022 and 21.1.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other order, that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar

2. By way of filing this petition the impugned recovery notice dated 14.02.2025 as well as enquiry report dated 02.12.2022 and 21.01.2025 have been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar recovery notices were issued to the petitioner on 23.03.2023, by which the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.15301/-, but now after passing of almost two years, the impugned recovery notices/orders have been passed against the petitioner by which he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.35110/-. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order has been passed by the respondents without issuing any notices and without granting any opportunity of hearing, hence, under these circumstances, the aforesaid order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy involved in this petition and looking to the fact that on earlier occasion i.e. on 23.03.2023, the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15301/-, but this time the amount of recovery has been increased/enhanced to the tune of Rs.35110/- that too without issuing any show cause notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court finds that the aforesaid action has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of filing representation and depositing a sum of Rs.15301/- with the respondents within a period of one week from today. 7. The respondents are directed to pass fresh reasoned and speaking orders within a period of four weeks thereafter after hearing the petitioner and taking into count his stand. 8. taken against the petitioner. Till the period of five weeks, no coercive action be [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (4 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] The stay application and all pending applications, if

9. any, also stand disposed of. 10. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.”

6. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, a representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents and the same has been decided in a cursory manner. The petitioner appeared before the respondents on 03.06.2025 and on the very same day the copy of the enquiry reports were supplied to him and without taking his defence into count and without providing any opportunity of hearing to him, straightaway the impugned order has been passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the order dated 23.04.2025.

7. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents for passing fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

9. Needless to observe, the respondents would pass fresh order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Karan/34 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Order 29/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Nainwa by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain recovery orders were passed against the petitioner vide order dated 23.03.2023 and 14.02.2025 and the same were assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5857/2025. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 with clear and specific [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (2 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation in the office of the respondents, which has been decided in a cursory manner without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide impugned order dated

03.06.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner appeared before the respondents on 03.06.2025 and on the very same day the copy of the enquiry report was supplied by the respondents and without hearing the stand of the petitioner and without considering the defence of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner asking the petitioner to deposit the recovery amount. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order has been passed in contravention to the order passed by this Court on 23.04.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5857/2025.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that in the earlier round of litigation, the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 with the following observations and directions:- “1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “(i) by an appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned recovery notice dated 23.3.2023 (Annex-8) and Recovery notice dated 14.02.2025 (Annex-13) as well as enquiry report [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (3 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] dated 2.12.2022 and 21.1.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other order, that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar

2. By way of filing this petition the impugned recovery notice dated 14.02.2025 as well as enquiry report dated 02.12.2022 and 21.01.2025 have been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar recovery notices were issued to the petitioner on 23.03.2023, by which the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.15301/-, but now after passing of almost two years, the impugned recovery notices/orders have been passed against the petitioner by which he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.35110/-. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order has been passed by the respondents without issuing any notices and without granting any opportunity of hearing, hence, under these circumstances, the aforesaid order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy involved in this petition and looking to the fact that on earlier occasion i.e. on 23.03.2023, the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.15301/-, but this time the amount of recovery has been increased/enhanced to the tune of Rs.35110/- that too without issuing any show cause notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court finds that the aforesaid action has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of filing representation and depositing a sum of Rs.15301/- with the respondents within a period of one week from today. 7. The respondents are directed to pass fresh reasoned and speaking orders within a period of four weeks thereafter after hearing the petitioner and taking into count his stand. 8. taken against the petitioner. Till the period of five weeks, no coercive action be [2025:RJ-JP:34672] (4 of 4) [CW-11112/2025] The stay application and all pending applications, if

9. any, also stand disposed of. 10. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.”

6. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, a representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents and the same has been decided in a cursory manner. The petitioner appeared before the respondents on 03.06.2025 and on the very same day the copy of the enquiry reports were supplied to him and without taking his defence into count and without providing any opportunity of hearing to him, straightaway the impugned order has been passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the order dated 23.04.2025.

7. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents for passing fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

9. Needless to observe, the respondents would pass fresh order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Karan/34 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J