### MANDAMUS FOR REFUND OF QUASHED PENALTY RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS UPON ACTUAL RESTITUTION BY STATE AUTHORITIES

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Bhawani Aata Chakki, was subjected to proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

On 22.12.2023, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Janjgir, imposed a penalty of ₹50,000/-.

The petitioner deposited this amount on 15.02.2024 but subsequently challenged the order through an appeal.

On 29.01.2025, the Sessions Court, Janjgir-Champa, allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty.

Although the ADM Janjgir passed an order on 23.05.2025 directing the refund of the amount, the authorities failed to comply, prompting the petitioner to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to refund the penalty amount after the original assessment order was quashed by an appellate court.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions for the enforcement of legal rights.

The proceedings were originally governed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically regarding the imposition and subsequent quashing of administrative penalties.

The principle applied is that once a penalty order is set aside by a competent appellate authority, the state lacks a legal basis to retain the deposited fine and is obligated to refund it to the aggrieved party.

The petitioner argued that since the Sessions Court had quashed the penalty order dated 22.12.2023, the legal foundation for the ₹50,000/- deposit no longer existed.

During the hearing, the State counsel presented a subsequent development: the ADM Janjgir-Champa had issued an order dated 21.01.2026 effectively refunding the disputed amount to the petitioner.

The Court observed that the primary grievance of the petitioner was the non-compliance of the refund direction.

By comparing the relief sought with the State’s submission of completed payment, the Court determined that the cause of action had been satisfied during the pendency of the litigation.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

No order was passed as to costs.