AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition has been filed against the orders of recovery dated 09.04.2020 & 16.04.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby, respondent No.3 had directed to recover the amount to the tune of ₹1,03,650/- on account of excess payment.
Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned recovery orders are bad in law as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned recovery orders (Annexure P/1) are liable to be set aside.
Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned recovery orders.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely.
Since there is a violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned recovery orders (Annexure P/1) were passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned recovery orders (Annexure P/1) are liable to be and is hereby set aside. However, respondents / competent authority is at liberty to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.