The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that administrative authorities cannot circumvent judicial directives by proceeding with coercive recovery actions before fulfilling mandatory procedural obligations. In a clear assertion of the doctrine of natural justice, the Court quashed a recovery order and citation issued against a rice miller, holding that such actions were rendered void by the State’s failure to comply with a prior court order requiring adjudication of the petitioner’s representation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from the State Government’s scheme for the procurement and hulling of paddy during the Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13. Under the scheme, licensed rice millers were supplied paddy by the State and were obligated to return the output as Custom Milled Rice (CMR). The petitioners, Nivas Ali and another, were licensed millers who received paddy but were allegedly denied the opportunity to deliver the CMR to designated godowns of the Food Corporation of India. The State, in turn, initiated recovery proceedings against them for non-delivery of CMR, claiming a loss of Rs. 50,88,684.74.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were supplied paddy under the State’s Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13 scheme.
- They attempted to deliver CMR to designated godowns but were refused acceptance without reason.
- On 16.09.2013, the District Food Marketing Officer, Siddharth Nagar, issued a notice demanding Rs. 56,61,186/- for non-delivery of CMR.
- On 11.12.2013, the petitioners were granted a 30-day extension to comply.
- On 29.01.2014, a revised recovery notice was issued demanding Rs. 50,88,684.74.
- On 14.02.2014, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6697 of 2014 seeking direction for acceptance of CMR.
- On 05.03.2014, the High Court disposed of Writ-C No. 13343 of 2014, directing the petitioners to file a reply to the recovery notice and mandating that the authority concerned pass a reasoned order before any recovery proceedings could proceed.
- On 10.03.2014, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation to the Regional Food Controller, Basti, addressing their grievances as directed by the Court.
- On 11.04.2014, the District Food Marketing Officer issued an order directing recovery of Rs. 50,88,684.74 without reference to the representation or the Court’s order.
- On 26.05.2014, a recovery citation (ZA Form-69) was issued under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
- The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 26.05.2014.
Procedural History
- 16.09.2013: Initial recovery notice issued for Rs. 56,61,186/-
- 11.12.2013: 30-day extension granted
- 29.01.2014: Revised recovery notice issued for Rs. 50,88,684.74
- 14.02.2014: Writ-C No. 6697 of 2014 filed seeking delivery of CMR
- 05.03.2014: High Court disposed of Writ-C No. 13343 of 2014, directing reply to notice and adjudication before recovery
- 10.03.2014: Petitioners filed detailed representation with Regional Food Controller, Basti
- 11.04.2014: Impugned recovery order issued by District Food Marketing Officer
- 26.05.2014: Recovery citation issued; instant writ petition filed
- 07.07.2014: High Court issued interim stay on recovery proceedings pending filing of counter affidavit
- 07.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the recovery order and citation were issued in direct violation of the Court’s binding direction in Writ-C No. 13343 of 2014. They contended that the representation dated 10.03.2014 was duly filed and remained unaddressed, rendering any subsequent recovery action illegal and violative of natural justice.
Respondents (State): Did not file any counter affidavit despite being directed to do so by the Court on 07.07.2014. At the hearing, the State Counsel merely alleged that the petitioners were unjustly retaining public property and were not entitled to equitable relief.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of:
- The recovery order dated 11.04.2014 (Annexure 22)
- The recovery citation dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure 23)
They further sought a direction to the authorities to decide their representation dated 10.03.2014 in accordance with law and to refrain from any recovery until such adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority may proceed with coercive recovery proceedings after a High Court has explicitly directed that such action must await a reasoned decision on the affected party’s representation, and whether failure to comply with such a direction renders the recovery order void.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Court’s own order dated 05.03.2014 in Writ-C No. 13343 of 2014, which mandated that the authority must consider the petitioner’s reply before taking any recovery action. They submitted that the representation dated 10.03.2014 was filed within the stipulated time and was received by the competent authority, yet no order was passed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2014 was issued without reference to this representation or the Court’s directive, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of audi alteram partem. They further distinguished the Maa Bhawani Rice Mill judgment, noting that it dealt with interim deposit directions and arbitration, not procedural compliance with a prior judicial order.
For the Respondent
The State Counsel did not file a counter affidavit despite being ordered to do so on 07.07.2014. At the hearing, they merely asserted that the petitioners were in possession of public property and were not entitled to equitable relief. No legal argument was advanced to justify the issuance of the recovery order in the face of the Court’s prior directive. No evidence was produced to rebut the claim that the representation was received or ignored.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the State’s failure to file a counter affidavit was fatal to its case. In the absence of any rebuttal, the facts pleaded by the petitioners - including the filing of the representation dated 10.03.2014 - must be accepted as true. The Court emphasized that the order dated 05.03.2014 was not a mere suggestion but a binding judicial direction, issued after full hearing and with clear intent to ensure procedural fairness.
"The authority concerned will consider the matter and pass appropriate orders and only thereafter will proceed with the matter."
The Court held that the impugned order dated 11.04.2014 was passed without any reference to the representation or the Court’s mandate. It was not merely procedurally defective - it was legally non-existent (non-est) because it was issued in direct defiance of a judicial order. The Court further noted that the recovery citation dated 26.05.2014 was a direct consequence of the illegal order and could not stand independently.
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Maa Bhawani Rice Mill, clarifying that the earlier judgment dealt with interim deposit obligations pending arbitration, not with the obligation to follow a prior judicial direction. The present case was not about balancing public interest against private gain - it was about adherence to the rule of law.
The Court underscored that judicial orders are not advisory. When a court directs an authority to follow a procedure, the authority is bound to comply. Failure to do so amounts to an abuse of power and a violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The recovery order dated 11.04.2014 and the recovery citation dated 26.05.2014 are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to decide the representation dated 10.03.2014 within three months from the date of this judgment, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. No recovery of Rs. 50,88,684.74 or any part thereof shall be initiated until a reasoned, speaking order is passed on the representation. The Court further directed that the decision must be communicated in writing to the petitioners.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must cite this judgment when authorities bypass court-mandated procedural steps before taking coercive action.
- Any recovery, penalty, or adverse order issued in violation of a prior judicial direction is void ab initio.
- Failure to file a counter affidavit in a writ petition operates as an admission of the petitioner’s factual assertions.
Judicial Directives Bind Administrative Action
- Administrative authorities cannot claim discretion to ignore judicial orders, even if they believe the petitioner is at fault.
- The doctrine of audi alteram partem is not optional - it is constitutionally mandated.
- Courts will not tolerate procedural arbitrariness, even in cases involving public funds.
Remedies for Non-Compliance
- Writ petitions under Article 226 remain available to challenge orders issued in defiance of court directions.
- Courts may impose costs or initiate contempt proceedings against authorities that repeatedly flout judicial mandates.
- The three-month deadline set here establishes a benchmark for expeditious adjudication in similar administrative disputes.
