SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1170 · Decided: 09-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1170 
A 
SHIV SHANKER D.\L MILLS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. 
November 9; 1979 
B 
[V. R. KRJSllNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India 1950, Artich; 226-1/igh Court /ioldin:_.: levy Ufegal-
Conscqe11tial liability to ref u11d-'A ltcrnative rcn1edj' arailable-Jurisdiction 
under-Whether barred. 
In Kewal K1ishan Puri v. State uf Punjab and others [1979J 3 S.C.R. page 
1217, this Court struck down payn1ent of marki:t 
fees at the inl.'.rcased 
rate 
of 3 per cent (raised frorn the original 2 per cent) under lfaryana Act No. 22 
of 1977. A consequential liability was therefore ca.st on the market committees 
to refund the excess amounts collected. 
The appellants and the petitioners who had paid under n1istake the excess 
sums demanded a direction to the effect that these amounts be refunded. 
On the que~tion of refund of the, execs.'i arnounts collected by the J}]arkct 
committees. 
HELD : 1. Where public botiies under colour of public 
laws 
recover 
people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, 
the· 
dhan11a of tflt;; 
situation admits of no equivocation. 
There is no hnv of limitation especially 
for public bodies on the virtue of returning what \\'O<; wrongly recovered to 
\vhom it 
bidongs, 
In 
our jurisprud<;>nce it is not palatable to 
turn down 
the prayer for high prerogative writs on the negative plea of alternative remedy, 
since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi rc11u:diu1n. 
(1172 G·H] 
2. In our jurisdktion, social justice is a pervasive preeience and save in 
.speciGl situation it is fair to be guided by the strategy of equity by asking 
those \Vho claim the scr\•ices of the ju<licial process to en1b1 a(.;c the basic rules 
of distributive justice, while n1oul<ling the relief by consenting to restore little 
sums taken in little transactions from litt\e persons to whon1 they belong. 
[1173 El 
3. Article 226 grants an cxtraordinr:iry re1ncdy which i-; essentially discrc· 
tionary, nlthough found~d on legal injury. 
It is perfectly open for the court 
exercising this fl~xible power to pass such orders as public interc_,, dictotes und 
equity projecLi;;. [1174 D] 
In the instant case although the refund of cxce:-.s collections might be 
legally due to the traders, many of the traders had themselves recovered the 
excess percentage from the next purchasers. To the extent the traders bad paid 
out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had in 
turn collected from elsewhere. 
It would be he.rd to leave every agriculturist 
to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible sums which 
cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. [1173 F-H] 
' I 
I 
SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Tyer, J.) 1171 
4. 111 Newabgani Sugar Mills v. Union of India and others [1976] 1 SCR 
A 
.:803 this Cou11 in a similar situation devised a new prucedure to deal \vith a 
new situation \vhere equity demanded redistribution but procedur.al expensi,'e-
ness and cu111bcrson1ent:ss effectively tfiwarted legal actions. 
[1173 li·ll74 Al 
5. Situations without precedent demand remedies v1ithout preced1~nt. [1174 B] 
[The Court devised a scheme uf refund by the market committees and 
redistribution of the small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collec-
tions had been made.] [1174 CJ 
Ovrr. APPELLATE luRISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3220-3234 
of 1979. 
B 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
11-7-79, 23-8-79, 8-8-79, 15-10-79, 30-7-79, 18-9-79, 
22-10-79, c 
18-10-79, 29-10-79, 16-10-79, and 12-10-79 of the Punjab 
and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Peittions Nos. 2306, 2966, 2737. 
3617, 2588, 3277, 3749, 3697, 3820, 3625, 3624 and 315-317/79 
respectively. 
AND 
D 
Writ Petitions No. 892, 918, 921, 979-980, 1057-1058, 1095, 
1234, 1273, 1051, 997, 940 and 981/79. 
(Under ArJiclc 32 of the Constitution) 
Dr. Y. S. Chitale (CA 3220/79), R. A. Gupta, Adarsh Goel and 
S. K. Goel, for the Appellant in CA 3220/79 and 3222/79 for the 
E 
Petitioner in W.P. 892, 918 and 921/79. 
B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda for the Appellant in CA 3221/ 
79, 3224-3226/79. 
A nil B. Dewan, Adarsh Goel, S. K. Goel, and R. A. Gupta for 
1he Appellant in CA 3323/79. 
F 
Adarslz K. Goel, S. K. Go~! and R. A. Gupta for the Appellants 
in CA 3222/79, for the Petitioner in WP 892/79, 918/79, 921/79. 
A. K. Goel and S. K. Goel for the Petitioner in WP 979 /79. 
B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda 

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