S TAMILARASI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.K.V.1/13160/2017 dated 19.05.2017 quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to return the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited by the petitioner with interest of 9% forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner would aver among other things that on 20.03.2017, the petitioner's husband participated in the tender on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the stone quarry situate at Survey No.777/4A, Part II, Ayankollaungkondan, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District. On account of the illness of the petitioner, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner's husband participated in the tender and as a pre-condition to participate in the said tender, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been paid by him through cheque. However, the petitioner could not succeed in the tender and therefore, she requested the amount deposited by her, for which, she made a representation on 11.05.2017 requesting the respondents to return the amount deposited by her. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order stating that the amount paid by the petitioner was adjusted towards the amount to be paid by the petitioner's husband, which is to be paid by him between 1998 to 2001 for the quarry operations conducted by him in Muthusamypuram Village and South bank of Rajapalayam Taluk. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) Further, according to the petitioner that the petitioner's husband while taking the quarry on lease has paid the entire necessary charges and only then, the lease agreement was executed permitting him to do quarry operations and till date, no action has been taken against him. However, in the impugned order it is stated that there is due on the part of the petitioner's husband for quarry operations conducted by him, for which, he gave consent to the respondents to adjust the amount paid by the petitioner towards the dues paid by the petitioner's husband. Despite the detailed representation dated 11.05.2017 requesting them to return the amount deposited by her, the respondents did not act upon the representation sent by the petitioner forcing the petitioner to come before this Court for the relief stated supra. Further, she also alleges that only through the impugned order it was informed about the alleged pendency of the due by the petitioner's husband and no notice was issued to her as regards the dues to be paid by the petitioner's husband. She further alleges that it is not correct to state that as if the petitioner's husband voluntarily requested the respondents to credit the amount towards pending dues to be paid by him. Hence, she has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.