Allahabad High Court
RAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The recovery order must be treated as a notice, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to reply before any coercive action can be taken.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Singh, challenged an order of recovery dated 30‑12‑2025 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar, on the ground that the recovery proceedings were barred for the financial year 2017‑18. The respondent argued that the petitioner had failed to reply to notices dated 21‑06‑2021 and 09‑09‑2024, justifying the recovery order. The High Court examined the notices and found that the petitioner had indeed not responded, but held that the order of recovery should first be treated as a notice requiring a reply. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply within three weeks and ordered the respondent to pass a fresh appropriate order within another three weeks. A stay on any coercive action against the petitioner was granted for two months or until a fresh order is passed, whichever is earlier.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the recovery order dated 30‑12‑2025 on the petitioner’s right to contest the proceedings?
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to reply to the notices justifies the issuance of the recovery order without further hearing?
- Whether the High Court can stay coercive action pending compliance with procedural requirements.
Subjects
- writ petition
- recovery order
- notice
- procedural fairness
- district panchayat raj
- stay of execution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6735 of 2026
Ram Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. The orders of recovery passed against the petitioner are under challenge
in the present writ petition.
2. It is stated in the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, District Siddharth Nagar/respondent no.5 that
inspite of notices issued to the petitioner no reply has been submitted. In
this view of the matter, after noting down the facts of the case an order of
recovery has been passed against the petitioner.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that recovery proceedings
against the petitioner could not be initiated for the financial year 2017-18.
4. On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that since
no reply was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notices hence
order impugned has been passed, which does not call for any interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. From perusal of the record it is clear that notices dated 21.06.2021 and
thereafter 09.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner by the District
Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar and since no reply was given the
decision in question has been taken.
7. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the order
dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent no.5 be treated as notice and the
petitioner is directed to submit reply to the same within a period of three
WRIA No. 6735 of 2026
2
weeks from today. If it is so the respondent no.5 is directed to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law within next three weeks.
8. For a period of two months or till the time a fresh order is passed,
whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner
pursuant to the aforesaid order.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 6, 2026
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…