Recovery under Section 92 requires consideration of the reply and a reasoned, speaking order.

The petitioner, Ramadhar Singh, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hinauti, Janpad Panchayat Rampur Baghelan, and was associated with construction works undertaken under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme during 2006–07.

Following an enquiry into alleged construction irregularities, the amount initially assessed at approximately Rs. 2.49 lakh was subsequently quantified at Rs. 7,02,130 and ultimately at Rs. 10,10,892.

The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a show-cause notice under Section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which the petitioner answered by a detailed reply dated 10.12.2009.

By order dated 06.03.2013, the SDO directed recovery of Rs. 10,10,892 as arrears of land revenue, without discussing the petitioner’s reply or assigning reasons for accepting the valuation report.

The Additional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 12.03.2013, following which the petitioner invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the SDO’s order directing recovery under Section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was legally sustainable when it failed to consider the petitioner’s reply and gave no reasons for accepting the alleged valuation of the loss.

Whether the Additional Commissioner acted lawfully in summarily dismissing the petitioner’s revision without addressing the alleged violation of natural justice and the lack of reasons in the SDO’s order.

The Court applied Section 92 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which permits the prescribed authority to recover Panchayat money and direct its recovery as arrears of land revenue, but only after providing the concerned person a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Section 92(4).

The Court further applied the settled principles of natural justice, including the requirement that an affected person’s response must be considered, and the administrative law requirement that an order affecting civil or financial rights must be reasoned and speaking.

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 to correct the manifest impropriety and patent illegality in the proceedings.

Although the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and submitted a detailed reply, the SDO’s order merely relied on the inspection and valuation conducted by departmental officers and directed recovery of Rs. 10,10,892.

It neither recorded the petitioner’s objections nor explained why the valuation report was accepted over the petitioner’s explanation.

Accordingly, the formal issuance of a notice did not satisfy Section 92(4), because the statutory opportunity to show cause required meaningful consideration of the reply.

The order was therefore non-speaking and contrary to natural justice.

The Additional Commissioner failed to correct this defect and instead rejected the revision on the ground that the petitioner could have raised the issues before the SDO, despite the record showing that the petitioner had already submitted his reply.

Both orders were set aside.

The SDO/authorised officer was directed to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 10.12.2009 and pass a properly reasoned speaking order before taking any further action to recover any amount under Section 92 of the Act.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.