TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no limitation prescribed under Article 226 for the litigants to approach the High Courts by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs, it is the self made law or judge made law in various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the various High Courts, that doctrine of latches would definitely be made applicable to cases where Article 226 is invoked belatedly without any plausible reason - what is the time limit which can be construed as a belated one or within the reasonable period, depends upon the facts of each and every case, as in these arena there is no hard and fast rule. Here in the case in hand, the Rule, as referred to above, mandates that, a notice should be issued in a particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in these cases, the two years period cannot be construed as a long delay to invoke the doctrine of latches to reject the claim of the petitioner as canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. In all these writ petitions, the impugned orders, insofar as the rejection made by the second respondent with regard to the refund claim made in respect of each of the cases, are hereby quashed - Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.24731, 24105, 24107, 23724, 24736, 23677, 23703, 23705, 23722, 23727, 24087, 24089, 24737, 24739, 24741 and 24743 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2022 - And W.M.P.Nos.26014, 28460, 28462, 28464, 28465, 28466, 28467, 28468, 28469, 28470, 2847 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petition on the ground that, before making this rejection in respect of the alleged inadmissible portion, no notice has been served on the petitioner, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case and without even giving any reason as to why the particular amount has been inadmissible and accordingly it was rejected, the impugned order was passed rejecting that portion of the claim made by the petitioner, thereby the order impugned is vitiated because of glaring violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this prime ground, the petitioner moved this writ petition and other writ petitions. 7. Reiterating the aforestated, Ms.S.Akila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the said refund claim. 9. Proviso to sub-rule (3) says that, no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 10. Relying upon this sub-rule (3) of Rule 92, the learned counsel would contend that, in this case, before passing the order impugned, no notice has been given, no opportunity has been given. Therefore, it is glaring violation of the said Rule, which mandates the respondent Revenue to issue a notice and give an opportunity to the applicant i.e. the petitioner to respond. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court against the impugned orders in all these writ petitions. 11. Per contra, Ms.M.Sheela, learned Senior Standi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, this Court feels that, though there is no limitation prescribed under Article 226 for the litigants to approach the High Courts by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs, it is the self made law or judge made law in various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the various High Courts, that doctrine of latches would definitely be made applicable to cases where Article 226 is invoked belatedly without any plausible reason. 17. However, what is the time limit which can be construed as a belated one or within the reasonable period, depends upon the facts of each and every case, as in these arena there is no hard and fast rule. 18. Here in the case in hand, the Rule, as referred to abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory mandate as contemplated under the Rule referred to above, these kind of cases are entertainable before this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in these cases, the two years period cannot be construed as a long delay to invoke the doctrine of latches to reject the claim of the petitioner as canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 22. Therefore, for all these reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following orders: (i) That in all these writ petitions, the impugned orders, insofar as the rejection made by the second respondent with regard to the refund claim made in respect of each of the cases, are hereby quashed. (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
