DHANYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS ETC. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 16-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

387 
DHANYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS ETC. 
A 
v. 
' 
THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND Ai'\IOTHER 
February 16, 1976 
t 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
1 
' 
• 
Practice and Procedure-Representation by millers for permission to export 
rice-Pern1its granted on pay111ent of surcharge to tneet expenses of adnlinistra· 
tive machinery set up to ensure export-Writ of n1andamus to refund n1oney 
collected-When n1ay be issued by this Court. 
Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872), s. 72-Scope of. 
The respondent-State Government was exercising po\vers delegated to it by 
the Central Government under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It intro-
duced an 'Incentive Export Scheme' under which, millers, who delivered 50% 
of their purchases to the Food Corporation of India towards mill levy, would 
be eligible for exporting rice either within the State from one block to another 
or to States outside, on payment of, administrative charges. On the representa-
tion of the millers (appellants) that they could not sell rice locally because 
there was no demand, and that unless they were allowed to move rice outside 
the blocks or outside the State there \vould be deterioration of stocks resulting 
in loss to both trade and the consuming public, the State passed orders per-
mitting the export of rice subject to the fulfilment of their commitments to 
the Food Corporation and the payment of administrative charges; and ~lso set 
up the necessary administrative machinery for ensuring such export. 
Permits 
\\.'ere accordingly granted on tern1s and on condition of payment of the surcharge 
fixed. and the millers paid the surcharge and received the benefits under the 
permits. Thereafter, they claimed refund of the administrative surcharge on 
the ground that the State had no right to collect it and that they made the 
payments under mistake of law. 
Where 
the State collected 
administrative 
charges but could not grant permits, the State refunded the money, but, where 
millers obtained permits and had taken advantage thereof, the State contended 
that there was no mistake on the part of the millers and that the payments 
were made voluntarily with full knowledge of facts and in discharge of their 
contractual obligations. 
The millers filed writ petitions praying for directions to the State to refund 
the administrative surcharges collected from them, but the High Court held 
that they were not entitled to the relief on the grounds of delay. insufficiency 
of particulars regarding expenses and charges incurred by the Government, and 
the payments being voluntary. 
Dismissing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD : The petitions were rightly dismissed by the High Court. Also, 
since various questions of fact are involved as to \Yhethef there was really a 
mistake, or whether it was a case of voluntary payment pursuant to contractual 
rights and obligations, the remedy under Art. 226 is not appropriate in the 
present cases. [396C-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(a) A mandamus will go where there is a specific legal right. If there 
G 
is no other means of obtaining justice, the writ of mandamus is granted to 
enable justice to be done. 
A writ of mandamus for recovery of mohey could 
be issued only \Vhcn the petitioner was entitled to recover that mol'l.ey under 
some statute. 
An order for payment of money may sometimes be made to 
enforce a statutory obligation. A mandaQ1us for refund of tax could be issued 
when the assessments were held to be illegal; but contractual obligations cannot 
be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Normally, the parties are relegated 
H 
to a sult to enforce civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort, 
to pay an amount of money. 
Mandamus may also be refused where there is 
an alternative remedy which is equally convenient, beneficial and effectual. 
. 
[395F-396C] 
.A 
B 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 s.c.R. 
R. v. Bristol and Exeter Railway Co. 1845(3) Ry. & Can. Cas. 777; Lekh 
Rai v. Deputy Custodian, (1966] 1 S.C.R. 120; Har Shankar & Ors. v. Deputy 
Excise and Taxation Commisisoner & Ors., A.l.R. 1975 S.C. 1121; Sales Tax 
Officer Banaras & Ors. v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundalal Saraf, (1959] S.C.R. !350; 
Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1740; Burmah 
Construction Co. v. State of Orissa, (1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 242 and State of 
Kera/a v. Aluminium Industries Ltd., 16 S.T.C. 689, referred to. 
(b) The ground of delay on which the High Conrt

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.