High Court · 2025

contended that the impugned order is non speaking and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order is punitive in nature, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded by the respondents before passing the impugned order/notice. The petitioner in this respect has made necessary averment in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition which is being reproduced herein below:- "24. That on perusal of the aforesaid notice, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not granted any opportunity of hearing to put forth their contention before the competent authority in order to satisfy regarding the cancellation of the said notice, as such said notice is bad in the eyes of law."

4. It is contended that the averments made in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit and since no opportunity was afforded to them by the respondents, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that large scale embezzlement has taken place by the petitioner and other persons whereby they have obtained scholarship in respect of those students who were not enrolled, and therefore, first information report to the said offence has also been lodged. It is contended that in such view of the fact, this Court may refrain from interfering with the impugned order.

6. Be that as it may, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order is cryptic and non speaking inasmuch as it does not disclose as to how the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.58,75,000/-. The impugned order does not disclose as to the names of the students or details of the students who were not students and the petitioner has obtained the scholarship in respect of those students. Further, the petitioner in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has categorically stated that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondents in paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced herein below:- "29. That the contents of paragraphs no.23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition are denied. It is categorically submitted that widespread regularity was found in disbursement of pre-metric scholarship for the academic year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in district Hathras and considering the seriousness of the matter, in the year 2016, the investigation was handed over to the Economic Offences Wing, Kanpur. It was found that the petitioner has deliberately misappropriated huge sum of money of the pre-metric scholarship which is also operated by the petitioner himself. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner is also mentioned in the FIR no.191/2014. It is also stated that pre-metric scholarship scheme is a scheme launched by the Govt. of India for deserving Minority student in order to uplift and support them thereby allowing them to receive education. The funds come from public money and any misuse of such public money has to be recovered and the petitioner cannot be exempted. It is further stated that earlier also a notice dated 08.02.20216 was sent to the Principal/Manager of the Madarsa Maulana Azad Educational Damdama, Sikandararau, District Hathras and notice dated 13.01.2023 has been sent and the petitioner has ample opportunity to submit appropriate reply which was not done by the petitioner. It is stated that the recovery issued against the petitioner is for recovery of the misappropriated funds of premetric scholarship money and the recovery certificates was issued through the Tehsildar, Sikandararau, Distt. Hathras. So far as the contention that the recovery certificate has not been received is absolutely false because the petitioner has annexed the same as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. It is further stated that the scholarship money has been transferred in the bank accounts of the institution which the petitioner is managing and the same is admitted to the petitioner. The scholarship money is public money and if that is misappropriated then it has to be recovered and for that purpose the recovery certificate impugned have been issued which is absolutely legal and valid. The petitioner has misappropriated a huge sum of public money and misused it, the scholarship money is public money and has to be recovered. It is submitted that in collusion with the then District Minority Welfare Officer, Hathrash the petitioner has deliberately misappropriated public funds that was in the form of three metric sholarship and recovery thereof is essential because public money cannot be allowed to be misappropriated hence appropriate steps for recovering the same has been initiated against the petitioner which is absolutely in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The pre-metric shcolarship scheme is a scheme launched by the Govt. of India for deserving Minority student in order to uplift and support them thereby allowing them to receive education. The funds come from public money and any misuse of such public money has to be recovered and the petitioner cannot be exempted. It is also submitted that detailed reply has been given in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. Suitable reply as well as correct facts has been stated in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition are not tenable in the eyes of law and the present writ petition as has been framed and filed by the petitioner are false and fabricated being devoid of any merits and against the provision of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost."

7. Perusal of the paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit reveals that the respondents have not specifically denied the allegations made in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing.

8. Since the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed without any order as to cost. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 SS SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

contended that the impugned order is non speaking and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order is punitive in nature, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded by the respondents before passing the impugned order/notice. The petitioner in this respect has made necessary averment in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition which is being reproduced herein below:- "24. That on perusal of the aforesaid notice, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not granted any opportunity of hearing to put forth their contention before the competent authority in order to satisfy regarding the cancellation of the said notice, as such said notice is bad in the eyes of law."

4. It is contended that the averments made in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit and since no opportunity was afforded to them by the respondents, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that large scale embezzlement has taken place by the petitioner and other persons whereby they have obtained scholarship in respect of those students who were not enrolled, and therefore, first information report to the said offence has also been lodged. It is contended that in such view of the fact, this Court may refrain from interfering with the impugned order.

6. Be that as it may, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order is cryptic and non speaking inasmuch as it does not disclose as to how the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.58,75,000/-. The impugned order does not disclose as to the names of the students or details of the students who were not students and the petitioner has obtained the scholarship in respect of those students. Further, the petitioner in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has categorically stated that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The paragraph No.24 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondents in paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced herein below:- "29. That the contents of paragraphs no.23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition are denied. It is categorically submitted that widespread regularity was found in disbursement of pre-metric scholarship for the academic year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in district Hathras and considering the seriousness of the matter, in the year 2016, the investigation was handed over to the Economic Offences Wing, Kanpur. It was found that the petitioner has deliberately misappropriated huge sum of money of the pre-metric scholarship which is also operated by the petitioner himself. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner is also mentioned in the FIR no.191/2014. It is also stated that pre-metric scholarship scheme is a scheme launched by the Govt. of India for deserving Minority student in order to uplift and support them thereby allowing them to receive education. The funds come from public money and any misuse of such public money has to be recovered and the petitioner cannot be exempted. It is further stated that earlier also a notice dated 08.02.20216 was sent to the Principal/Manager of the Madarsa Maulana Azad Educational Damdama, Sikandararau, District Hathras and notice dated 13.01.2023 has been sent and the petitioner has ample opportunity to submit appropriate reply which was not done by the petitioner. It is stated that the recovery issued against the petitioner is for recovery of the misappropriated funds of premetric scholarship money and the recovery certificates was issued through the Tehsildar, Sikandararau, Distt. Hathras. So far as the contention that the recovery certificate has not been received is absolutely false because the petitioner has annexed the same as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. It is further stated that the scholarship money has been transferred in the bank accounts of the institution which the petitioner is managing and the same is admitted to the petitioner. The scholarship money is public money and if that is misappropriated then it has to be recovered and for that purpose the recovery certificate impugned have been issued which is absolutely legal and valid. The petitioner has misappropriated a huge sum of public money and misused it, the scholarship money is public money and has to be recovered. It is submitted that in collusion with the then District Minority Welfare Officer, Hathrash the petitioner has deliberately misappropriated public funds that was in the form of three metric sholarship and recovery thereof is essential because public money cannot be allowed to be misappropriated hence appropriate steps for recovering the same has been initiated against the petitioner which is absolutely in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The pre-metric shcolarship scheme is a scheme launched by the Govt. of India for deserving Minority student in order to uplift and support them thereby allowing them to receive education. The funds come from public money and any misuse of such public money has to be recovered and the petitioner cannot be exempted. It is also submitted that detailed reply has been given in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. Suitable reply as well as correct facts has been stated in the preceding paragraphs of the counter affidavit. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition are not tenable in the eyes of law and the present writ petition as has been framed and filed by the petitioner are false and fabricated being devoid of any merits and against the provision of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost."

7. Perusal of the paragraph No.29 of the counter affidavit reveals that the respondents have not specifically denied the allegations made in paragraph No.24 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing.

8. Since the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed without any order as to cost. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 SS SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad