DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case obtained a loan of Rs. 2500/- from the State of Haryana, under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 , for the purchase of a pumping set for improving his land. The amount of loan was given to him on the 30th of March, 1966, and it was repayable in 20 half-yearly instalments of Rs. 161.50 each. The petitioner alleges that he purchased the machinery for the installation of the pumping set at a cost of Rs. 2601.24 and spent an amount of Rs. 3000/- on the installation of the tubewell. The fact of the purchase of the machinery is admitted by the respondents but it is stated that he did not install the tubewell within 12 months as was required of him under the terms of the loan. The petitioner alleges that he had installed the tubewell on or about the 20th of November, 1966, and made a report of the same to the Patwari of the village on the 28th of December, 1966. Thereafter, he applied for the subsidy of Rs. 750/- on the ground that he had installed the pumping set within the prescribed period but the subsidy was never granted to the petitioner. The application for subsidy which is dated the 2nd of February, 1967, was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala through the Block Development Officer, Block Raipur Rani. The acknowledgement receipt is dated the 3rd February, 1967, by the Block Development Officer. The petitioner paid Rs. 311/- on account of two instalments on the 28th of September, 1967. On the 6th of April, 1968, he received a notice dated the 27th of March, 1968, informing him that on account of his failure to install the pumping set in a proper way, the Collector had ordered the recovery of the whole of the amount of Taccavi with interest thereon in a single instalment. The amount demanded from him was Rs. 3162.50. After the receipt of this notice, the petitioner went to the Tehsildar and asked him to accept the third instalment that had fallen due. The Tehsildar did not accept the instalment and, therefore, the petitioner sent it by money order on the 17th of May, 1968, addressed to the Recovery Clerk, Naraingarh, which was refused by the addressee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the 19th of September, 1968, for the quashing of the order dated the 7th of March, 1968.

(2.) It has been asserted by the petitioner that before the Collector passed the order dated the 7th of March, 1968 (copy annexure 'I' to the writ petition) no notice of any kind was issued to him. This fact is not denied by the respondents in the return but it is stated that no notice was necessary. In this order a penalty of Rs. 312.50 was imposed and including the amount of this penalty and the interest, the amount was determined as Rs. 3162.50. In my opinion when the petitioner had asserted that he had installed the tubewell within the prescribed time and thus properly utilised the loan given to him, it was incumbent on the Collector to give him an opportunity of hearing against the report which he had received that the pumping set had not been installed within time. No such opportunity having been given to him, the order dated the 7th of March, 1968, is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice. It cannot be sustained.

(3.) For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted and the order dated the 7th of March, 1968, of the Collector, Ambala, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is allowed two months time to pay instalments which have become due upto date but have not been paid. In future the petitioner shall continue to pay the half-yearly instalments on proper dates. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Petition accepted.