Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 201038 (ALL)

HARI RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/27559/2025 · 2025-10-14

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27559 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State respondents, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi along with Sri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the dated 2.8.202025, 22.7.2025 and 19.7.2025 (Annexure no. 3, 2 and 1 respectively) with regard to the recovery from the petitioner and Ex-secretary of the society. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any recovery from the petitioner amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- as Ex-secretary of the Society." 3. Apart from various arguments, one of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as stated in paragraph nos. 23 and 24 of the writ petition are quoted below:- "23. That the entire proceedings are behind the back of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar, K.K.Rao, Maithali Sharan Pipersenia Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prabhakar Awasthi, Alpana Dwivedi, C.S.C., Hridaya Narayan Mishra Hari Ram Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner and on the basis of letter dated 19.7.2025 a liability of huge amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- has been imposed against the petitioner. 24. That as stated earlier and on the cost of repetition it is specifically stated that no notice has been given to the petitioner or petitioner's wife with regard to any enquiry and any enquiry made is behind the back of the petitioner and an ex-parte enquiry." 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 it is stated that as earlier in point of time various notices were issued to the petitioner initially on 4.6.2025, 11.6.2025, 20.6.2025, 23.6.2025 and 26.6.2025 but in spite of the same no reply was submitted by the petitioner. The receiving of the aforesaid notices were denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Whether the said notices have been served upon respondent no. 6 or not, cannot be determined by this Court. So far as recovery orders which are under challenged in the present case is concerned, from perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that no such reference of the earlier notice was issued by the respondent upon petitioner under the aforesaid orders. 6. We are of the opinion that orders impugned in the petition have been passed in complete violation of principle of Natural Justice. 7. In Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. & Others, (2025)7 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph no. 68 as under:- "68. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics." 8. In view of the aforesaid, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit his reply to the respondent no. 6, District Manager, Pradeshik Cooperative Federation (PCF), Kushinagar till 31.10.2025 along with all supportive documents which he intends to rely upon and copy of this order. On WRIC No. 27559 of 2025 2 presentation of such a reply, the respondent no. 6 shall decide the same afresh within next two weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with Law and the orders impugned shall be subject to the final order which the respondent no. 6 shall pass.. 9. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 10. Till the period of two months from today, the orders impugned shall be kept in abeyance and no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. 12. No order as to costs. October 15, 2025 Sushma WRIC No. 27559 of 2025 3 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad