Dismissed

Mr. Amol Arun Katkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2016WP/9741/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the retention of money by the State. The Court held it could not issue a mandamus for refunds as that involves examining underlying disputes, and direct recovery claims are not maintainable in writ jurisdiction. Both petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions were dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

Mr. Amol Arun Katkar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

7-WP9741-15+.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9741 OF 2015

¶4

Amol Arun Katkar & Ors.…Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others…Respondents

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9742 OF 2015

¶6

Kuldip Anandrao Chaudhary & Ors....Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh, for the Petitioners in both the petitions.

¶8

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:11th January 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.We are unable to agree with the Petitioners' Advocate that a
writ of mandamus be issued to the Government to refund the
money which according to the Petitioners' Advocate is illegally and
unlawfully retained.

¶11

2.We also find that making of their representation, a copy
which is at page 52, would not enable this Court to consider as to

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

7-WP9741-15+.DOC

¶14

whether any sum is allegedly retained unlawfully or illegally by the
Government. This would require going into all the disputes and
which the Petitioners had with the State or the appropriate or
competent authority therein. If the Petitioners feel that the fees
have been paid at the rate payable and what is recovered or what is
then offered by the Petitioners is in excess of the prescribed fees
then nothing prevents them from instituting appropriate
proceedings for recovery of such excess sum. In writ jurisdiction we
cannot issue any direction to the State to consider the claim. Both
the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.

¶15

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶16

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶17

2 of 2

Mr. Amol Arun Katkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Amol Arun Katkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 9 Ors.

Mr.Devendra S Mallah Vs the Slum Rehabiliation Authority and 5 Ors.

Ramesh Nishad Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 5 Ors.

Nayasa Exports Pvt. Ltd, through Director, Shri. Imran Mithwani and Ors. Vs the Union of India, through Central Govt. Advocates, Dedicated Legal Cell (Customs) and Ors.

Afloat Textile (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Anr.

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept of Revenue and Anr.