BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31/01/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.342 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.No.393 of 2006 A.Vincent Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Engineer (South) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (South) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dindigul. 3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Operating & Maintaining, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Siluvathur, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings in Ka.No.Oo.Mi Po/Siluvathur/Ko/Thani/Aa/05 dated 24.11.2005 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Lenin Kumar ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Baskar :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Baskar
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By consent of both counsel, the
writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third
respondent dated 24.11.2005, under which the third respondent has directed the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.49,606/- within one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order. The impugned order passed by the third respondent is
based on the auditor’s report.
3. On the face of it, the impugned order is passed by the third respondent
without affording opportunity to the petitioner merely on the basis of the
auditor’s report. Even assuming that auditor’s report reveals certain dues
payable by the petitioner, it is incumbent on the part of the third respondent
to afford opportunity to the petitioner before passing such order of recovery.
4. In view of the same, the impugned order is illegal and the same is
liable to be set aside. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has made
a representation to the third respondent dated 26.12.2005 explaining that he is
not liable to pay the amount which has been demanded by the respondent. It is
open to the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner
dated 26.12.2005, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently,
the connected W.P.M.P is closed. There is no order as to costs.
nbk
To
1.The Executive Engineer (South)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (South)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Dindigul.
3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer,
Operating & Maintaining,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Siluvathur, Dindigul District.
