TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing given by the respondent. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 21-5-1997. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to refund amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner was required to move this Court for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. Had this amount been paid well within the reasonable period, he would not have been required to approach this Court. He, therefore, prayed for grant of interest as consequential relief for delayed payment of admitted amount of refund to which petitioner was entitled in law. 3.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a solitary contention that the writ petition itself being not maintainable, no suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition was not ordinarily maintainable. He, at the cost of repetition, urged that the petitioner was within its right to seek mandamus to get the order of the Tribunal implemented and in such a petition consequential order directing grant of interest can always be passed. 5.It is no doubt true that in all these cases what was laid down was that proceedings by way of writ were not appropriate in case where the Court is called upon to go into disputed questions of facts. In that event, writ petition would not be an appropriate remedy. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai - AIR 1964 SC 1006 had occasion to observe as under : "Where sales tax, assessed and paid by the dealer, is declared by a competent Court to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ordinary mode of action in a Civil Court and to refuse to exercise in his favour the extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution." The remedy of writ is always a discretionary remedy as observed by the Apex Court in the above judgment. It is the discretion of the Court either to issue writ or not to issue writ, but discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending upon facts of each case. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, in the case of Burmah Construction Co. v. The State of Orissa - AIR 1962 SC 1320 had an occasion to observe as under: "The High Court normally does not entertain a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to enforce a civil liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest on delayed refund under the Act. After amendment as noticed, this statutory obligation can certainly be enforced by issuing writ of mandamus. In this view of the matter, remedy of writ is very much available to the petitioner. No doubt, this power is to be exercised keeping in view the self imposed restrictions but at the same time if a person is deprived of his right to use his money, such deprivation has to be compensated as held by the Apex Court in the case of L.I.C. v. GangadharRanade - AIR 1990 SC 185. In view of the matter, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was deprived of his liquidity in the business for no justifiable reasons. Thus, we propose to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
