Srp Breweries Pvt Ltd vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5415/2026 & CM APPL. 26411/2026

Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

SRP BREWERIES PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Manav & Mr. Anupam
Bhati and Mr. YatenderBhardwaj,
Advs.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for
GNCTD.
Mr Hitesh, GP, UOI.
Mr. Ajay Chowdhary, Senior Panel
Counsel for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus,
directing the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.2,62,35,615/- . The
petitioner also seeks a direction declaring that said recovery was illegal, and
unconstitutional.
2. The brief facts are that, the petitioner is a licensed liquor vendor. On
30.06.2017, a show cause was issued to him, where certain discrepancies in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
18:03:33
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

relation to stock verification were alleged. Thereafter, FIR No.432/2017 was
registered under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, where one of
the petitioners’ employees, namely Kapil Kumar Arora was arrayed as an
accused. The chargesheet against the same was filed on 24.08.2022.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was never implicated in said criminal proceedings. It is further
submitted that, on account of his death, the proceedings against the accused
was abated vide order dated 22.09.2022. After filing of the charge-sheet,
certain documents, that would, according to him, demonstrate the arbitrary
and illegal acts of the officials of the respondent-Department came to his
knowledge.
4. The Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and perused the record.
5. This Court is conscious that a writ petition seeking refund of money is
not to be rejected merely because the relief claimed is monetary in nature,
especially when the refund is claimed due to an illegality alleged on part of
the State, without authority of law. At the same time, the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature
and depends on the facts of each case. Ordinarily, the writ Court would
exercise jurisdiction, where the material facts on record are not seriously
disputed, and the absence of the authority to retain the amount is apparent
from the record.
6. The present case does not fall into that category. The petitioner herein
seeks to reopen events of the year 2017, and relies upon coercion that is said
to have operated at that time. The amount refund whereof is sought for had
also been deposited in the year 2017. The chargesheet, on which reliance is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
18:03:33
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

placed to explain the later discovery of documents, was filed on 24.08.2022.
The present petition, however, had been filed only in the year 2026.
7. The pendency of criminal proceedings against an employee of the
petitioner cannot, by itself, justify the petitioner’s failure to pursue its own
monetary claim within a reasonable time. The petitioner had always been
aware of the deposit made by him, and the circumstances therein. The later
filing of the chargesheet may have supplied additional material, but it cannot
explain the failure to challenge the deposited amount for several years.
1

8. In State of Maharashtra v Digambar , the Supreme Court has held
that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must explain laches and undue delay
to the satisfaction of the Court in order to claim equitable relief. When the
relief sought by the person is against a State, based on wrongful executive
action, the burden to explain such delay is much higher, since passage of
time may prejudice the State in producing the relevant record, or the officers
involved.
9. The relief sought in the present petition is, in substance, a direction
for refund of the deposited money. The question as to whether the said
amount was in fact deposited under duress or coercion, and whether there
was any illegality on the part of the officials of the respondent department
are not evident from the material on record. These questions would require a
close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence.
10. For all those reasons, at this point of time, the Court is not inclined to
exercise writ jurisdiction and to direct a refund of the amount in question.
11. The petition is, accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall, however,

1
1995 SCC (4) 683, para 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
18:03:33
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available in
accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2026/P




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
18:03:33
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV