HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12076/2010 Shekh Mukhtyar Son Of Shri Abdul Gafur, 53, Baldev Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmerrajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Land Water Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Senior Land Water Scientist Survey And Research Land Water Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Civil Lines, Ajmer 3. Asst. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Regional Office, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer 4. District Treasury Officer, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer 5. State Bank Of India Through Its Chief Manager, Ajmer Branch, In Front Of The Office Of Collector, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC Mr. Yashpal Garg JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition. 2. By passing the order dated 07.11.2008, the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of (2 of 3) [CW-12076/2010] Rs.38,550/- within a period of three months in Government treasury. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been passed by the respondents without issuing any notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the respondents amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that due to negligent driving of the petitioner, the vehicle met with an accident, wherein, certain amount was expended in litigating the matter before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and before this Court. Counsel submits that accordingly, a decision was taken to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner and thus, the order impugned has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the order dated 07.11.2008 indicates that the respondents have issued a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.38,550/-, but before passing this order, no notice was given to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him and straightaway the said order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. (3 of 3) [CW-12076/2010] 7. It is settled proposition of law that if any adverse order is passed against a person, it is incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to provide at least one opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse action against him. Here in the instant case, above procedure has not been followed by the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 9. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh order after following the due process of law and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/196