UMA SHANKER RAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. The only issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ ofcertiorari to quash an order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Azamgarh, by which recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner as a consequence of public revenues, instead of being deposited in the treasury, being retained by him. The order of the District Magistrate is dated 19 January 1988 and is appended at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The counter-affidavit of the State explains a slight error in the amount mentioned in the recovery order which instead of Rs. 10, 131. 50 ought to read as 11, 414. 84.

(2.) NO reply has been given to the counter-affidavit by the petitioner though he had received it on 16th June, 1992. Likewise, when the petitioner was asked to explain the matter relating to retaining the public revenues in his capacity as an Ameen, the counter-affidavit submits that he evaded the opportunity.

(3.) THE Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter as the audit report is the subject-matter of scrutiny by the Account ant General, Uttar Pradesh. THE petitioner himself has appended a certificate from the District Magistrate referring to the report of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.