[2025:RJ-JP:29057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2929/2025 Simbhu Dayal Meena S/o Gopi Ram Ji Meena, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Pathredi, Tehsil Paota, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat Building, Jaipur. 2. District Collector Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Paota, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 5. Gram Panchayat Pathredi, Through Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Paota, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 6. Divisional Commissioner, Mini Secretariate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kartikeya Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr.Ashutosh Udawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 31/07/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the notice dated 22.04.2024 issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Paota for recovery of the amount. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 09.01.2025 in S.B. CWP No.846/2024 (Smt. [2025:RJ-JP:29057] (2 of 3) [CW-2929/2025] Vakila Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, wherein following order was passed:- “1. These petitions are decided by this common order as the facts and issue involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.846/2024. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of recovery order dated 01.01.2024. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Cheedwa, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar. On a complaint received of embezzlement in installation of 50 hand pumps, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh constituted a enquiry committee, which submitted a report dated 16.03.2023. Thereafter on objection raised by the petitioner, another enquiry committee was constituted and submitted its report dated 30.10.2023 where it was found that at some of sites the hand pumps were not in working condition whereas at some sites the hand pumps were not even installed. On the basis of enquiry committee report, the impugned demand notice has been issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without passing an order creating the demand, the recovery order was issued on the basis of enquiry report. [2025:RJ-JP:29057] (3 of 3) [CW-2929/2025] 5. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned action and submits that the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing by the enquiry officer and on a representation received a fresh committee was constituted, which submitted its report on 30.10.2023. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the amount sought to be recovered is on recommendation of the enquiry report and no order has been passed by the competent authority creating the demand. 7. These petitions are disposed of with direction that the impugned order be treated as show cause notice issued to the petitioner to which the response shall be filed within four weeks from today. Thereafter the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law by passing an order.” 3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/174