POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
789
POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 – Scope of interference –
Auction of sand blocks of river – Appellant was highest bidder and
he deposited the entire auction amount but he was not put in
possession – He filed representation for refund of auction amount
– The Panchnama prepared by the Circle Officer exhibited that
neither possession of the sand block was given to the appellant nor
excavation of sand was done from the said sand block – The said
position was reiterated by the Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and
also Collector – However, in the transit the file was lost and as such
appellant was not granted possession of sand block nor refund
was made to him – State Government also rejected his prayer for
refund – Appellant filed writ petition – High Court refused to
entertain the petition on the ground that it involved question of
facts – On appeal, held: Normally, when a petition involves disputed
questions of fact and law, High Court would be slow in entertaining
the petition under Art.226 of the Constitution – However, it is a rule
of self- restraint and not a hard and fast rule – Even if there are
disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they
do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is
not precluded from entertaining Art.226 petition – However, such a
plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional
circumstances – In this case, undisputedly, the appellant was highest
bidder for the sand block in question and made deposit of full
auction amount – Subsequently after all the authorities found that
neither the possession of the sand block was handed over to him
nor the excavation of sand from the said sand block was done, at
the instance of the Collector, the file for grant of refund was being
processed – However, appellant was denied the refund on the ground
that the file in transit was misplaced – It could thus be seen that the
denial on the part of the respondents to refund the amount to
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 789
789
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
appellant was unreasonable – The action of authorities, in denying
refund of the amount of the appellant, when they themselves had
failed to give possession of the sand block and as a result of which
the appellant could not excavate the sand, would smack of
arbitrariness – In this premise, High Court was not justified in
relegating the appellant to file a suit – Respondents directed to refund
the entire amount received from the appellant along with interest.
Government litigant: The State should act as a model litigant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Even if there are disputed questions of fact which
fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence
to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining
a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a
plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in
exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in
exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available
remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its
instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, in
this case, there were hardly any disputed questions of facts. [Paras
5, 6][794 E-H]
ABL International Ltd. & Anr. v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC
553 – relied on.
2. It is undisputed, that the appellant was the highest bidder
for the sand block in question. The appellant has deposited an
amount of Rs. 62,26,085/-. The Panchnama prepared by the Circle
Officer clearly exhibited that neither possession of the sand block
in question was given to the appellant nor excavation of sand was
done from the said sand block. The said position was reiterated
by the Tehsildar in his report submitted to the Collector. The
Sub-Divisional Officer in his report addressed to the Collector
also confirmed the said position. It appears, that subsequently
after all the authorities including Circle Officer, Tehsildar, Sub-
Divisional Officer and the Collector found that neither the
possession of the sand block was handed over to the appellant
nor the excavation of sand from the said sand block was done, at
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
the ins

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