### Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Is Not Exercisable For Monetary Refunds Involving Laches and Disputed Facts

The Petitioner, a licensed liquor vendor, sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of ₹2,62,35,615/-, alleging that the recovery made by the Respondent-Department in 2017 was illegal, unconstitutional, and conducted under duress.

The dispute originated in June 2017 following stock verification discrepancies and the registration of FIR No. 432/2017 against the Petitioner's employee.

Although a chargesheet was filed in August 2022 and proceedings against the accused abated due to death, the Petitioner claimed that new documents demonstrating departmental illegality only came to light post-chargesheet.

The Petitioner approached the High Court in 2026.

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order a refund of money deposited several years prior to the filing of the petition.

2. Whether the filing of a chargesheet against an employee and the subsequent discovery of documents provide a sufficient explanation for laches and undue delay in filing a writ petition.

The court primarily applied the principle of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that while writ petitions for monetary refunds are maintainable if the state acts without authority, such relief is subject to the facts of the case and the absence of disputed material facts.

It further relied on the precedent established in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, which mandates that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must satisfactorily explain laches and undue delay, with a higher burden of proof placed on those challenging executive actions due to potential prejudice to the State over time.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner failed to justify the delay in seeking relief. Although the Petitioner relied on the 2022 chargesheet to explain the "discovery" of documents, the court noted that the deposit was made in 2017 and the petition was only filed in 2026.

The court observed that the Petitioner was always aware of the circumstances of the 2017 deposit; thus, the pendency of criminal proceedings against a third party (the employee) did not excuse the failure to pursue a monetary claim within a reasonable time.

Furthermore, the allegations of "duress" and "coercion" raised disputed questions of fact that required close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, making the summary nature of writ jurisdiction inappropriate for resolving such claims.

It held that the Petitioner failed to explain the laches and undue delay to the satisfaction of the court, particularly when the facts surrounding the alleged illegality were not evident from the record. However, the court granted liberty to the Petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies as may be available in accordance with law.