TARABEN NARANJI DHANAK Vs. GUJARAT EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Primary Education Officer, Kutch, Bhuj dated 4th October, 1989 directing recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,12,971/-, which was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the very District Primary Education Officer, Kutch, Bhuj dated 21st August, 1989.

(2.) SHRI N. K. Thakker, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated 4th October, 1989 passed by the District Primary Education Officer, Kutch, Bhuj is against the principles of natural justice and is a non-speaking order and as such, is relying upon the communication of the Deputy Director, Primary Education, State of Gujarat dated 26th September, 1989. He submitted that there was no such order passed by the Deputy Director, Primary Education, State of Gujarat dated 26th September, 1989 ordering recovery of the amount paid. Apart from the fact that the impugned order is in breach of the principles of natural justice, he submitted that the same is arbitrary and illegal. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the communication dated 26th September, 1989, which is at page 74,along with the affidavit in reply of respondent No. 1.

(3.) MR. K. V. Shelat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on going through and considering the communication dated 26th September, 1989 of the Deputy Director, Primary Education, State of Gujarat, is not in a position to support the order of recovery passed by the District Primary Education Officer, Kutch, Bhuj dated 4th October, 1989, by admitting that on considering the communication of the Deputy Director, Primary Education dated 26th September, 1989, which is at page 74 annexed with the affidavit in reply, it cannot be said to be an order passed by the Deputy Director ordering recovery of Rs. 1,12,971/- from the petitioner and on quashing and setting aside of the earlier order of the District Primary Education Officer dated 21st August, 1989. However, he has submitted that as such, against the order passed by the District Primary Education Officer dated 21st August, 1989, the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 was pending before the Deputy Director, Primary Education.