"When a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is a rule of self-restraint," SC.
Facts of the case are that the respondent –District Collector, Satara had issued a notice of public auction for auctioning the sand blocks of Krishna river in the year 2012. The appellant had submitted his bid for excavation of sand. The appellant’s bid being the highest i.e. Rs.59,75,000/¬, he was awarded the tender. The total deposit made by the appellant was Rs.62,26,085/¬ towards allotment of sand block including Rs.1,19,500/¬ towards environmental cost and Rs.1,23,085/¬ towards income tax. However, since the said sand block was at a distance of about 100 ft. from the school, the villagers opposed the excavation of sand. Though the appellant had deposited the entire amount, he was not put in possession of the said sand block. The appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra for refund of the auction amount. As the appellant’s representation was sent to the Collector, Satara to make enquiry, the Circle Officer, Kale prepared a Panchnama of the sand block in question which exhibited that possession of sand block was never given to the appellant and that there was no excavation of sand from the said sand block.
Though the appellant was not granted possession of the sand block and he had not excavated any sand, the refund of the amount could not be made to him. The Desk Officer of the – State Government passed an order rejecting the prayer of the appellant seeking refund of the auction amount. The appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition but the High Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts. Aggrieved by the order, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the appellant had approached Supreme Court.
Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant said that “No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-¬restraint and not a hard and fast rule. Even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
Supreme court further added that “this Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice”.
Supreme Court held that in spite of the appellant being the highest bidder and in spite of him depositing the entire amount of auction, since the possession of the sand block was not given to him for reasons not attributable to him and he could not excavate the sand, he will be entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The respondents were directed to refund the entire amount received from the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the appellant made the first request for refund till the date of realisation.
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
