Kali Charan Mahto vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Sl. No.,Date of work order,Amount of the construction

1,07.03.2009,"Rs.40,920/-

2,09.03.2009,"Rs.39,800/-

3,12.05.2009,"Rs.36,740/-

4,22.06.2009,"Rs.16,940/-

5,01.10.2009,"Rs.20,130/-

6.,04.03.2010,"Rs.39,600/-

7.,09.09.2010,"Rs.49,500/-

,,"Total                  Â

Rs.2,43,630/-

The High Court, while enforcing fundamental or statutory rights, has the power to give consequential relief by ordering payment of money realised by",,

the Government without the authority of law. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai.),,

(iii) A petition for issue of writ of mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money, to the return of",,

which the petitioner claims a right. The aggrieved party seeking refund has to approach the civil court for claiming the amount, though the High Courts",,

have the power to pass appropriate orders in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 for payment of money. (Vide Suganmal v. State,,

of M.P.) (iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those,,

where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of",,

mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that",,

the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain,,

the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v.",,

Supdt. of Taxes.),,

(v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of the,,

money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each case.,,

For instance, where the facts are not in dispute, where the collection of money was without the authority of law and there was no case of undue",,

enrichment, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens. But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be",,

unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a",,

given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd.),,

(vi) Where the lis has a public law character, or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access",,

to justice by way of a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. (Vide Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum,,

Corpn. Ltd.),,

We are therefore of the view that reliance upon Suganmal was misplaced, to hold that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable.â€",,

       (emphasis supplied),,

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728,",,

in paragraph 69, which reads as under:",,

“69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have,,

pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there",,

are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain",,

circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normallyâ€, the Court would not exercise such a",,

discretion:,,

69.1The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it.,,

69.2Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under",,

Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to",,

through the means of arbitration.,,

69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.,,

69.4Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional,,

circumstances.â€​       (emphasis supplied),,

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissingÂ",,

“money-suitâ€Â type of writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3657 of 2015 preferred by this appellant vide order dated 8th October, 2015. We are in",,

full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, the same is, therefore,",,

dismissed.,,