SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order Annexure P/1 dated 5.6.2006 whereby an amount of Rs.70,000.00 is directed to be recovered from the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, by criticizing the said order, submits that the petitioner was served with show-cause notices Annexure P/12 and R/10. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to those show-cause notices by Annexure P/13. It is stated that in the reply the petitioner has dealt with the averments of the show-cause notices and put-forth his defence in a categorical manner. Learned counsel submits that in the impugned order no reasons are assigned as to why the defence taken by the petitioner is not found trustworthy. Apart from this, by placing reliance on various clauses of Annexure P/2 dated 19.6.2000, Shri Singh submits that petitioner was under no obligation to undertake the exercise for which he is inflicted with recovery. He submits that other authorities were responsible for the purpose of implementation of seed sale scheme and by no stretch of imagination, petitioner can be inflicted with recovery for alleged irregularities/mistakes which were committed by somebody else.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.