POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL No.    1600     OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5290 of 2019) POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL   ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  & ORS.      .... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T   Leave granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  3. The   appellant   has   approached   this   Court   being Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2020.02.14 18:15:19 IST Reason: aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ 2 Petition No.8708 of 2017 thereby, declining to entertain the petition since the petition involves question of facts.  4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The   respondent   –   District   Collector,   Satara   had issued   a  notice   of   public   auction   for   auctioning   the   sand blocks of Krishna river in the year 2012.  The appellant had submitted   his   bid   for   excavation   of   sand   insofar   as   Gat No.956A, Plot No.2 at village Rethare Khurd, Taluka Karad. The   agreed   quantity   of   excavation   was   8500   brass.     The appellant’s bid being the highest i.e. Rs.59,75,000/­, he was awarded the tender.   On 3.1.2012, the appellant deposited Rs.15,00,000/­ th as   one­fourth   (1/4 )   amount   of   auction   with   Government treasury.  On 16.1.2012, the appellant deposited remaining auction   amount   of   Rs.44,83,500/­.     The   appellant   also deposited   Rs.1,19,500/­   towards   environmental   cost   and Rs.1,23,085/­ towards income tax.  As such, the total deposit 3 made by the appellant was Rs.62,26,085/­ towards allotment of sand block.   However, since the said sand block was at a distance of   about   100   ft.   from   the   school,   the   villagers   of   Rethare Khurd village had opposed the excavation of sand.  As such, though the appellant had deposited the entire amount, he was not put in possession of the said sand block.   In the circumstances, the appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra for refund of the auction amount.   As the appellant’s representation was sent to the Collector, Satara to make enquiry, the Collector, Satara   (respondent   No.2   herein),   in   turn,   by   letter   dated 11.6.2012 sought a report from the Tehsildar, Karad.   On 15.6.2012, statement of the appellant came to be recorded by the Circle Officer, Kale (respondent No.5 herein). He also prepared a Panchnama of the sand block in question which   exhibited   that   possession   of   sand   block   was   never given to the appellant and that there was no excavation of sand from the said sand block.   4 The Tehsildar, Karad ­ respondent No.4, submitted a detailed   report   dated   9.8.2012   to   the   Collector,   Satara pointing out the factual position.  The Sub­Divisional Officer, Karad   –   respondent   No.3,   in   turn,   submitted   a   report   on 4.9.2012 reiterating the factual position.  It appears, that in the transit the file was lost and as such, though the appellant was not granted possession of the sand block and though yet he had not excavated any sand, the refund of the amount could not be made to him.  It appears that there were further correspondences   between   the   authorities   and   finally,   the Desk Officer of the respondent No.1 – State Government vide order dated 25.3.2014 rejected the prayer of the appellant seeking refund of the auction amount.   The   appellant   again   made   several   representations. Since there was no response, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017.  As stated earlier, by the impugned order, the High Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts.   5

1 (2004) 3 SCC 553 6

7

6. It could thus be seen, that 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 the present case, we find that there are hardly any disputed questions of facts. 7. 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 8 prepared by the Circle Officer, Kale ­ respondent No.5, 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 is reiterated by the Tehsildar, Karad – respondent No.4 in his report submitted to the Collector ­ respondent No.2 dated 9.8.2012.   The Sub­Divisional Officer, Karad – respondent No.3 in his report dated 4.9.2012, addressed to the Collector, Satara also confirmed the said position.   A perusal of the letter dated 3.10.2012, addressed by the Collector, Satara to the   Tehsildar   and   Sub­Divisional   Officer   also   does   not dispute   the   said   position.     However,   he   directed   his subordinates to submit original file of the appellant’s sand block with his office for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.  8. It appears, that subsequently after all the authorities including Circle Officer, Tehsildar, Sub­Divisional Officer and the Collector found that neither the possession of the sand block was handed over to the appellant nor the excavation of 9 sand from the said sand block was done, at the instance of the Collector, the file for grant of refund was being processed. It further appears, that the file in transit was misplaced and on this ground the appellant was denied the refund. It could thus be seen, in these admitted facts, that the denial on the part of the respondents to refund the amount to the appellant can, by no stretch of imagination, be called as reasonable. The action of the respondents, in denying the refund of the amount of the appellant, when the respondents 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, we find that the High Court was not justified in relegating the appellant to file a suit. 9. This Court, has time and again held, that the State should  act  as  a  model  litigant.      In  this   respect,  we  can gainfully   refer   to   the   following   observations   made   by   this 10 Court in   Urban Improvement Trust,   Bikaner   vs.   Mohan 2 Lal :

2 (2010) 1 SCC 512 11

12

10. In view of the undisputed position, that in spite of the appellant being the highest bidder and in spite of him depositing the entire amount of auction, since the possession of   the   sand   block   was   not   given   to   him   for   reasons   not attributable to him and he could not excavate the sand, he will be entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him.    11. In   the   premises,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The impugned   order   of   the   High   Court   dated   6.8.2018   is   set aside.     The   respondents   are   directed   to   refund   the   entire 13 amount received from the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the appellant made the first request for refund till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.  …....................CJI.                              [S.A. BOBDE] ......................J.                                                          [B.R. GAVAI] ......................J.                                                          [SURYA KANT] NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 14, 2020