Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.SANTOSH DEVI versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT.SANTOSH DEVI v STATE & ORS - CW Case No. 1367 of 2004 [2007] RD-RJ 5581 (23 November 2007)

1/2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1367/2004.

(Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.)

DATE OF ORDER : 23.11.2007.

HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner.

Mr. OP Boob, Addl.G.A., for respondents. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the recovery made against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Public Debt

Recovery Act, 1952 of a penalty of Rs. 1,10,653/- @ 2% of the gross value of the works contract which was awarded to the husband of the petitioner way back in the year 1994-95 by the

Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Sikar, but work was not undertaken. 3. The work was never started by the petitioner for unavoidable reasons and later on, it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the said person Ram

Shankar Sharma, husband of the present petitioner Smt.

Santosh Devi renounced this world and became a Saint. 4. Admittedly, there is no order on record determining the said amount of penalty by a competent 2/2 authority of the Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board before a certificate of recovery was issued to the Collector for recovery under the PDR Act. 4. This Court is of the clear opinion that without an order determining such amount liable to be recovered from the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunity to him, no such certificate of recovery could be straightway issued to the

Collector for recovery under the PDR Act. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the recovery certificates and orders passed by the authorities under the P.D.R. Act dated 11.8.2003 is quashed and the auction notice Annex.1 dated 31.1.2004 is also liable to be quashed and therefore, the same is also quashed. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI),J.

Sr.No.3 /gandhi


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.