1 APHC010878122017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34755/2017 Between: 1. KANDAMURI VIJAYA SEKAR, S/O MALLESWARA RAO AGED 54 YEARS OCC: RECORD ASSISTANT IN MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, R/O MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. ASWADATI BALARAM, S/O GOPAL RAO AGED 42 YEARS OCC: RECORD ASSISTANT IN MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, R/O MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. BANDIGATLA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O SATYANARAYANA AGED 50 YEARS OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT IN NUZVID MUNICIPALITY AT NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. MYNAMPUDI SUBHAN, S/O CHINTHALU AGED 59 YEARS OCC: ATTENDER IN MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, R/O MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY COOPERATION, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES MUTUALLY AIDED, COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, AT 2 MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER NUZVID MUNICIPALITY, AT NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in taking steps to recover the alleged dues from the salaries of the petitioners for the purpose of recovery of amounts of respondent no.2 without issuing any show cause notice, and without adjudication by competent authority by issuing impugned orders vide ROC no.861/99/B5 dt.20-9-2017 issued by the respondent nos.3 and 4 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4. 5. VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34755 of 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 respondent nos.3 and 4 in taking steps to recover the alleged dues from the salaries of the petitioners for the purpose of recovery of amounts of respondent no.2 without issuing any show cause notice, and without adjudication by competent authority by issuing impugned orders vide ROC No.861/99/B5 dt.20-9-2017 issued by the respondent nos.3 and 4 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…..” 2. Heard Smt. Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harsha S. Ammineni, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation and Sri M. Karthik Raja, learned counsel representing Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for Respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the employees in respondent No.3 - the then Municipality now merged as 4 Municipal Corporation in different cadres, except petitioner No.3 who is working in respondent No.4 Municipality. 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. 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 1 2005(6) SCC 321 5 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.” 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 2 (2025) SCC Online SC 179 6 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:02.01.2026 ARB 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 34755/2017 Date:02.01.2026 ARB