Allowed

Palghar Taluka Reti Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tadulwadi, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2014WP/10175/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted interest at 9% per annum payable from August 8, 2012, on a royalty amount of Rs. 3,84,000 deposited by the petitioner, which was wrongfully withheld by the State Government after a permission to extract sand was not acted upon.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 3,84,000 with interest at 9% per annum from 8th August 2012 granted within three months.

Palghar Taluka Reti Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tadulwadi, through Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

903 wp 10175.13 AS.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10175 OF 2013

¶5

Palghar Taluka Reti Utpadas Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tadulwadi

¶6

... Petitioners.

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶13

M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 05 FEBRUARY 2014.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1 Rule.

¶17

2 Learned AGP waives service for the Respondents. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶18

3 On the basis of order dated 7^th December 2011 passed by the State Government on the Application made by the Petitioner, a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees three lac eighty four thousand) was deposited by the Petitioner with the State Government under the said communication dated 7^th December 2011. Permission was granted to the Petitioner to carry out extraction of sand.

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

¶21

903 wp 10175.13 AS.doc

¶22

4 However it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was not permitted to act upon the said permission.

¶23

5 Therefore, an Application was made by the Petitioner on 14^th December 2012 for refund of the amount of Rs.3,84,000/- which was deposited by the Petitioner towards royalty. The said request was followed up by further letters dated 8 August 2012 and 27^th June 2013 respectively.

¶24

6 The grievance of the Petitioner is that notwithstanding the said demands, the royalty amount was withheld by the Respondents. Therefore, a prayer is made for directing the Respondents to refund of the said amount with interest.

¶25

7 On the last date, we granted time to the State to take instructions. On instructions of Mr. Chandrakant Emberwar, Clerk, Sand Branch, the learned AGP states that sum of Rs.3,84,000/- was deposited by the Petitioner towards royalty and the Petitioner could not act upon order dated 7^th December 2011. He, however, opposed the prayer for grant of interest.

¶26

8 After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondents, we find that atleast from the date of first Application made by the Petitioner on 14^th December 2012, there was no justification for the Respondents to retain the amount of royalty deposited by the Petitioner. Thereafter, two applications were made by the Petitioner but the amount was not refunded.

¶27

2 of 3

¶28

¶29

903 wp 10175.13 AS.doc

¶30

9 As the amount was not refunded, the Petitioner has suffered monetary loss. In exercise of equitable jurisdiction, as this Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always compensate the litigants by granting interest on the overdue amount.

¶31

10 Considering the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to grant interest at the rate of 9% on the said amount. First Application for refund was made by the Petitioner on 8^th August 2012 (Exhibit D to the Petition). Therefore, interest will be payable from the said date.

¶32

11 Accordingly we pass following order:

¶33

i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) with a modification that interest at the rate of 9% per annum will be payable on the sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees three lac eighty four thousand only) from 8^th August 2012 till the date of the payment of the said amount to the Petitioner;

¶34

ii) We grant time of three months to the Respondents to pay the entire amount to the Petitioner along with interest as aforesaid;

¶35

Iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶36

katkam

¶37

3 of 3

Palghar Taluka Reti Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tadulwadi, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palghar Taluka Reti Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Tadulwadi, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ramesh Vinayak Powar Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Nirmala Jagannath Barge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Pakash Anandrao Abitkar Vs the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Vs Vithu Balu Hajam and Ors.

Dhondu Dadunath Gosavi (Since Decd, through Legal Heirs) Shri. Kacharu Dhondu Gosavi and Anr. Vs the Deputy Collector (Acquisition), Vaiterna Jal Vidyut Project, Nashik and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Punjaji Tidke and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation, Nashik and Ors.