MOHANPRASAD TRIPATHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 23-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHANPRASAD TRIPATHI 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 23, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
State Assembly-No confidence motion-Allegation of mustering support 
in favour of Chief Minister-Writ petition for an enquiry-High Court 
directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount-Amount deposited by the 
petitioner-Application for withdrawal of the petition and claim for refund 
of the amount deposited-Not allowed by the High Court holding the petition 
infructuous-On appeal, Held: Since the Writ petition was declared 
irifructuous by the High Court, it erred in not directing refund of the 
amount-High Court is directed to refand the amount so deposited by the 
appellant forthwith-Directions issued-Practice & Procedure. 
A Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners/appellant, a social 
worker, praying for an enquiry into the affairs in the episode of 
mustering support by the ruling Government in favour of respondent 
A 
B 
c 
D 
No. 5, the then Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra for the trust 
E 
motion in the State Legislative Assembly. The High Court directed the 
appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac within the prescribed time limit. 
The appellant deposited the amount. Later, the appellant filed an 
application before the High Court for permission to withdraw the Writ 
Petition and refund of the amount. The High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petition as infructuous as the cause of action has come to an end, 
however, it directed the appellant to file a separate appellation for 
refund of the amount. The appellant filed a Civil application for 
permission to withdraw the amount deposited by him. The High Court 
directed the appellant to file an affidavit giving details of the sources 
through which the amount deposited was generated. The appellant filed 
an affidavit giving details of the amount collected through various 
sources. The High Court vide impugned judgment and order refused 
to grant permission to withdraw the amount. The appellant then filed 
a review petition, which was also dismissed. Hence the present 
appeals. 
873 
F 
G 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant contended that the High Court has neither considered 
B 
the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant nor did it consider 
the contention and affidavit filed by him in respect of disclosure of 
source of the amount deposited by him pursuant to its earlier directions. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court has clearly observed that the cause 
of action of the Writ Petition had come to an end and, therefore, nu 
fruitful purpose was to be served by keeping the petition pending. 
Having observed that the Writ Petition has become infructuous, the 
C 
High Court ought to have ordered refund of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh 
which was ordered to be deposited by the High Court to show the 
bonafide of the Public Interest Litigant. [878-H, 879-AI 
D 
E 
F 
1.2. The appellant has also filed two affidavits clearly explaining 
the source from which the amount came to be deposited in the High 
Court. However, the High Court made an observation that the source 
explained by the appellant for depositing the amount does not merit 
acceptance and they have serious doubt about the source from which 
the amount came to be deposited before the High Court. The High 
Court has entered into an unwarranted discussion in regard to the 
deposit made by the appellant and the source from which the amount 
came to be deposited. (879-A-B-CJ 
1.3. When a petition was filed for reviewing the earlier order, the 
Division Bench of the High Court committed the same error by dismissing 
the Petition and did not permit the appellant to withdraw the sum. 
(879-C) 
1.4. No counter affidavit was filed by any of the respondents 
disputing the statement made by the appellant in regard to the deposit 
made and the source from which the deposit was made. The High Court 
G has unnecessarily gone into an unwarranted controversy and then 
rendered the finding by rejecting the request of the appellant for 
withdrawal of the amount in spite of the dismissal of the Writ Petition 
as having become infructuous. (879-D-El 
2. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the prayer of the 
H 
appellant is not correct, hence set aside. The High Court is directed to 
MOHANPRASAD TRIPATHI v. STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 875 
refund the amount forthwith to the appellant. (879-F-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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