Disposed

Mr.N.Ravichandran v. the Deputy Commissioner

Madras HC12 Jun 2019WP/12144/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the non-refund of a bar security deposit, the High Court observed that respondents claimed to have already refunded the amount. The Court found issuance of writ at this belated stage improper and granted liberty to the petitioner to seek refund details from the relevant authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the 1st respondent for refund or details; Writ Petition disposed.

Mr.N.Ravichandran Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.12144 of 2012

¶6

N.Ravichandran, 55, (old No.29) 2nd Floor, Lazarus Church Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600028. ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Chennai Collectorate, Singaravelan Maligai, Chennai - 600001.

¶7

The Taluk Excise Officer,
Mambalam Guindy Taluk,
Chennai - 600078.

¶8

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Chennai - 600006. ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the 1st respondent in L1/60165/09 dated 29.07.10 and quash the same as invalid and against the fact and direct the 1st respondent to refund the bar deposit amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- relating to the year 2001-2002.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijayakumar

¶11

ORDER

¶12

When the petitioner was originally granted license to run IMFL shop in the year 2001-02, he claimed to have deposited a

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

sum of Rs.50,000/- towards security deposit for running the bar. Subsequently, when the shop was taken over by the Government, the petitioner had closed down the business in the year 2003. Thereafter, when he had sought for refund of the security deposit of Rs.50,000/-, the 1^st respondent had given a reply stating that the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been repaid through a Cheque No. 948440, dated 27.06.2003.

¶15

The petitioner herein disputes the receipt of refund of Rs.50,000/- as well as the Cheque and therefore, he had given a representation to the Bank on 26.07.2001, seeking for details of the aforesaid Cheque. Pending consideration of such a representation, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶16

When the respondents 1 and 2 had taken a specific stand that they had already refunded the security deposit, it will not be appropriate to direct them to consider the petitioner's claim for refund. Nevertheless, if the petitioner is of the view that the amount has been refunded by the respondents 1 and 2, it is always open to him to approach the respondents 1 and 2 seeking for details of the payment. As such, issuance of mandamus at this belated stage will not be proper.

¶17

In the light of the above observations, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation to the 1^st respondent seeking for details of the amount claimed to have been refunded or for a refund of the security deposit of Rs.50,000/- and on receipt of such a representation, the 1^st respondent herein shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

hvk

¶23

¶24

The Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Chennai Collectorate, Singaravelan Maligai,

¶25

Chennai - 600001.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

The Taluk Excise Officer, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Chennai – 600078.

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.D.Vijayakumar, Advocate, Sr.No. 47213 +1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 48096

¶29

W.P.No.12144 of 2012

¶30

CSL/11.07.2019

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.N.Ravichandran v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.N.Ravichandran v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

M/S.Dena Bank Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S. Arun Plasto Moulders Vs the Joint Commissioner of

N.a.Abdul Basheer (42 Yrs.), Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Ocean Interiors Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.P.Prakash Kumar, Vs the District Manager

M/s.Srivalli Shipping & Vs The Commissioner of Service