Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46042 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15169 of 2023 Petitioner :- Salman Farooq Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order/notice dated 13.01.2023 issued by respondent No.3-District Minority Welfare Officer, District Hathras, whereby he has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.28,59,000/- which have been embezzled by the petitioner towards scholarship. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order/notice, the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is non speaking and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order is punitive in nature, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded by the respondents before passing the impugned order/notice. The petitioner in this respect has made necessary averment in paragraph No.26 of the writ petition which is being reproduced herein below:- "26.That on perusal of the aforesaid notice, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not granted any opportunity of hearing to put forth their contention before the competent authority in order to satisfy regarding the cancellation of the said notice, as such said notice is bad in the eyes of law." 4. It is contended that the averments made in paragraph No.26 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit and since no opportunity was afforded to them by the respondents, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that a large scale of embezzlement has taken place by the petitioner and other persons whereby they have obtained scholarship in respect of those students who were not enrolled, and therefore, first information report to the said offence has also been lodged. It is contended that in such view of the fact, this Court may refrain from interfering with the impugned order. 6. Be that as it may, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order is cryptic and non speaking inasmuch as it does not disclose as to how the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.28,59,000/-. The impugned order does not disclose as to the names of the students or details of the students who were not students and the petitioner has obtained the scholarship in respect of those students. Further, the petitioner in paragraph No.26 of the writ petition has categorically stated that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The paragraph No.26 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondents in paragraph No.26 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph No.26 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced herein below:- "26.That the contents of paragraph no.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27 of the writ petition are denied in the manner stated and in reply thereto it is respectfully submitted that the recovery initiated against the petitioner are absolutely valid and legal. So far as the investigation is concerned, it is stated that after the large scale embezzlement came into light, the investigation was directed to be done by the Economic Offence Wing, Kanpur and the EOW, Kanpur is conducting the investigation and has also been able to collect credible evidence towards the said embezzlement done by the petitioner and the money which has been withdrawn from the bank (bank account no.25760100008753 with Bank of Baroda, branch Sikandararau, Hathras) where the account of the petitioner institution is held. The recovery of the amount that was been embezzled by the petitioner had to be recovered and as such the recovery certificate has been issued which is valid exercise in the eye of law. The petitioner was served with notice dated 8.2.2016 and subsequent notices and the petitioner are well aware of the same. The petitioner had ample opportunity to refund the money that was illegally withdrawn which the petitioner did not refund." 7. Perusal of the paragraph No.26 of the counter affidavit reveals that the respondents have not specifically denied the allegations made in paragraph No.26 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. However, perusal of the averments made in paragraph No.26 of the writ petition reveals that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed without any order as to cost. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 SS Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad