1 (WPS No. 735 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:15320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 735 of 2016 1 - (Died), Sirottam Prasad Patel As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-09-2024 1.1 - Smt. Kevra Bai Patel Wd/o Late Sirottam Prasad Patel, Aged About 75 Years R/o C/o Patel Furniture, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.) 1.2 - Naresh Chandra Patel S/o Late Sirottam Prasad Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o C/o Patel Furniture, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Canal Division No.5, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01.04.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.3, whereby an amount of Rs.3,69,481/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.04.03 17:49:48 +0530 2 (WPS No. 735 of 2016) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery has been passed, whereas no amount was outstanding. As such, the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. 3. Be that as it may, impugned order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure P/1), being passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to file reply before respondent No.3/competent authority within four weeks’ from today showing that her husband was not responsible for payment of the said amount and the respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the said reply of the petitioner on its own merit strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said reply. 4. With the aforesaid directions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!