INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) None present on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order passed by B.D.O. and the writ of demand dated 18.11.2004 and subsequent dated 31.03.2005 not served upon the petitioner and further order/warrant of attachment dated 23.04.2005 served upon the petitioner on 23.03.2006 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii If any prejudicial order is passed during the pendency of the writ petition then the same may kindly be taken on record and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery dated 10.12.2001 has been passed by the respondent No.3 without following the due procedure of law as provided under Section 111 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Sub-Section 4 of Section 111 of the Act of 1994 which reads as under:- "If the member or, as the case may be, the Chairperson or the deputy Chairperson disputes his liability or its extent, the competent authority or the officer authorized by him after recording evidence in support of the allegations and after giving the concerned office-bearer, opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to adduce evidence in defense shall, by order, determine the extent and amount of liability of such office-bearer for such loss, waste or misapplication of money or property.";