Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1825/2018 of SMT. SAVITA DEVI Vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE on 12 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1825/2018 Smt. Savita Devi --Petitioner Versus District Magistrate and others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/1825/2018 Smt. Savita Devi --Petitioner Versus District Magistrate and others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr. K.S. Mehta, Additional CSC for the State.
2. According to petitioner, she held the office of Gram Pradhan between the years 2011-2016. In this writ petition, she has challenged recovery notice issued by District Magistrate, Haridwar on 22.02.2018, whereby she was asked to deposit Rs. 30,349/- in the account of Gram Panchayat, Dhanauri, Roorkee.
3. Petitioner contends that she is not liable for any recovery, as the drain was constructed by using manual labour and the allegation that JCB machine was used for digging of drain, is incorrect. In support of this contention, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the order passed by Lokpal, MGNREGA on 03.09.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner was not heard during enquiry held by District Development Officer, based on which the impugned recovery notice has been issued. Thus it is submitted that an order which entails civil consequences to petitioner cannot be passed without hearing her.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that Lokpal has not exonerated the petitioner and the order dated 03.09.2016 was passed by him out of frustration as Block Development Officer was not co-operating in holding enquiry, despite repeated notices issued by Lokpal. He further submits that since Lokpal has not gone into the issue whether manual labour was used for constructing the drain or it was constructed with the help of JCB, therefore District Development Officer was directed to hold enquiry into the matter.
6. He further submits that if petitioner has received any monetary benefit wrongfully or by playing fraud, then such monetary benefit can always be recovered from her, notwithstanding the order passed by Lokpal, MGNREGA.
7. This Court finds some substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Since petitioner was not heard during the course of enquiry by District Development Officer and based on report of that enquiry, petitioner was asked to refund certain amount. An order which entails civil consequences to a person can be passed only after affording opportunity of hearing to him. Since that was not done in the present case, therefore the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.02.2018 is set aside. District Magistrate, Haridwar, however, shall be at liberty to pass fresh order against petitioner within three months, but only after providing opportunity of hearing to her.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.08.2026 Mahinder