Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashwini Kumar Sood vs State Of M.P. on 16 March, 2016
WP-2356-2010
(ASHWINI KUMAR SOOD Vs STATE OF M.P. )
16-03-2016
Shri D.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on I.A.No.17245/2010 for vacating the stay granted by this Court.
No case for vacating the stay granted by this Court is made out. I.A.No.17245/2010 is accordingly dismissed. Also, heard on the question of admission.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2010 by which the respondent authorities have directed the recovery of the value of excess diseal consumed by the petitioner beyond the permissible quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the diseal consumed by the petitioner was in respect of official duty which had been ordered to be performed by the higher authorities and in such circumstances, no recovery should be made from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a detailed representation on 08.03.2010 (Annexure P-3) against recovery before the authority concerned but no decision thereon has been taken till date. It is stated that in such circumstances, the respondent authorities be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner by applying their mind by taking a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.
Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned expeditiously, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the authority concerned within two weeks, the representation dated 08.03.2010 filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months.
However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order.
It is further directed that in view of the interim order passed by this court, no recovery proceedings shall be taken against the petitioner till a final decision on the petitioner's representation is taken by the respondents/authorities.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE