1 APHC011042532017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 45173/2017 Between: 1. GOPISETTI CHANDRASEKHAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. WORK INSPECTOR, MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SAILAM MALLESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. ATTENDER, MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. GOPISETTI HARA VISHVESHWARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. DRAFTSMAN, MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, AT MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3n1 respondent in issuing Impugned Proceedings Roc. No. 861/ 99 / B5 dated 20.09.2017 ordering recovery of amounts from the salary of petitioners, as arbitrary, irregular, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including recovery of amount by way of installments from the salaries of the petitioners in pursuance of impugned Proceedings issued in Roc.No.861/99/B5 dated 20.09.2017 of the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 45173/2017 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main relief: “to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Impugned Proceedings Roc.No.861/99/B5 dated 20.09.2017 ordering recovery of amounts from the salary of petitioners as arbitrary, irregular, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass…..” 2. Heard Ms.R.Anusha, learned counsel representing Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harsha S. Ammineni, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the employees in respondent No.3 - the then Municipality now merged as Municipal Corporation in different cadres. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 issued notice vide ROC.No.861/99/B5 dated 20.09.2017 directing the concerned clerk of respondent No.3 to recover the amounts from their respective salaries so as to pay the loan amounts. Challenging the impugned notice, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 4. Sri Harsha S. Ammineni, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 on oral instructions submits that though respondent No.3 issued impugned notice dated 20.09.2017, the same was not acted upon in view of the subsequent events. He further submits that any recovery was not made. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by recording the said submission, the writ petition may be disposed of. 6. The Apex Court vividly stated in Canara Bank vs. V K Awasthy1, at para 14 as under: “Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed there under. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” 1 2005(6) SCC 321 5 7. Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2, by taking into different facets of principles of natural justice in its unequivocal words observed that the primary purpose of natural justice is to assist the administration in reaching sound decisions at the outset, reducing the likelihood of decisions being overturned later. Its significance lies in fostering fair and well-informed decision making at the very first instance. 8. Non-adhering the principles of natural justice, by straight away deducting amounts from the salaries of the petitioners is per-se illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, writ petition is allowed by directing respondent No.3 not to take any coercive steps basing upon the impugned notice dated 20.09.2017. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:31.12.2025 AG/Rns 2 (2025) SCC Online SC 179 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 45173/2017 Date:31.12.2025 AG