1 APHC010963572017 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: 41816/2017 Between: 1. BANDARU SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. ATTENDER IN MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, R/O. MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER 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 MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER MACHILIPATNAM MUNICIPALITY, AT MACHILIPATNAM, 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 preferable Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 3 in taking steps to recover the alleged dues from the salaries of the petitioners for the purpose of 2 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 dated 20.09.2017 issued by the respondent Nos.3 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside the said order and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017 (WPMP 51857 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 the recovery of amounts from the salaries of the petitioners in pursuance of impugned orders vide ROC No. 861/99/B5 dated 20.09.2017 issued by the respondent Nos.3, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA 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: 41816/2017 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 respondent No.3 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 dated 20.09.2017 issued by the respondent Nos.3 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, set aside the said order and pass…..” 2. Heard Smt. Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner submits that the petitioner is the employee in respondent No.3 - the then Municipality now merged as Municipal Corporation in different cadres. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 amount from the salary of the petitioner 4 so as to pay the loan amount. 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 petitioner 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:02.01.2026 ARB 2 (2025) SCC Online SC 179 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 41816/2017 Date:02.01.2026 ARB