Haricharan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84784
1 WP-11399-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11399 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC010266582021
HARICHARAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - GA for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P-3)
passed by respondent No. 3/Executive Engineer Water Resources
Department, Chhatarpur and demand notice (Annexure P-4). The petitioner
has sought following reliefs in the petition:-
"(i) The honble court may kindly be pleased
to call for the records for the satisfaction of
the honble court.
(ii) The Hon'ble court may be pleased to
quash the order dt. 17.03.2020 Annexure P-3
and demand notice Ann P-4 by issuance of an
appropriate writ or direction.
(iii) Any other relief or writ or direction or
order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit
and proper looking the facts and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 23-10-2026
12:21:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84784
2 WP-11399-2021
circumstances of the case be awarded to the
petitioner in including the cost of the
petitioner."

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Annexures P-3
and P-4 are being made instrumental to recover the amount from the
petitioner. The action proposing recovery against the petitioner goes contrary
to the settled principle of natural justice as the petitioner has not been heard
before issuance of the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order
Annexure P-3 as well as demand notice Annexure P-4 are liable to be
quashed. It is further contended that the petitioner herein was the President of
the Water Management Committee, Madhopur under the Biriyarpur Project
in the Water Resources Department. A Bank Account was opened in the said
project. The process of signature verification was carried out. A field channel
was constructed. However, later on alleging irregularities, the petitioner was
called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 4.63 Lakh. There was no adjudication of
the said liability. The petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor
was afforded any opportunity of hearing to put forth his stand and directly
the impugned order and the impugned demand notice have been issued to the
petitioner.
3 . On the contrary, the counsel for the State has opposed the
contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that prior
to passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was called upon to deposit
the aforesaid amount, which is evident from perusal of the enclosures
attached with the Return and are available on record. Therefore, the
petitioner is duty bound to deposit the aforesaid amount and is precluded
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 23-10-2026
12:21:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84784
3 WP-11399-2021
from assailing the impugned order and demand notice.

4. Heard submissions and perused the record.
5. On perusal of record, it reflects that the petitioner in the memo of
petition has pleaded that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner
was not heard. According to the petitioner, no show cause notice or
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order Annexure P-3 and demand notice Annexure P-4. The
respondents in their Return have stated in paragraph 5 that show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner and in support of the said asseveration
Annexures R-3 and R-4 have been filed. A perusal of the same reveals that
by the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the
aforesaid amount. The said document, which forms part of Annexure R-3
and R-4, prima facie, nowhere suggest that the petitioner was asked to put
forth his stand regarding proposed recovery, therefore, it appears that in the
case in hand, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before
passing the impugned order and impugned demand notice against the
petitioner. The Authority since intended to pass an order which had civil
consequences, the petitioner was required to be heard in the matter. Hence, it
would be conducive as well as in the interest of justice that the petitioner be
afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondents before any adverse
order is passed against the petitioner.
6. Resultantly, the order dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by
respondent No. 3/Executive Engineer Water Resources Department,
Chhatarpur and demand notice (Annexure P-4) stand quashed. Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 23-10-2026
12:21:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84784
4 WP-11399-2021
No. 3 is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh after issuing show

cause notice to the petitioner and ensuing adherence to the principle of
natural justice.
7 . The petition stands disposed of reserving aforesaid liberty with
respondent No. 3.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 23-10-2026
12:21:22