1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5578/2008 (Govind Bhati Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 13.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 published an advertisement in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika inviting applications for allotment of plots/shops on the 'nala' inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. In that advertisement, a condition was incorporated to deposit Rs.10,000/- along with the application. The contention of the petitioner is that an application was moved by him and he deposited 2 Rs.10,000/- and a receipt was issued by the then Nagar Palika on 10.7.1985. The petitioner has placed on record the photostat copy of the said receipt as Annexure-1, which shows that Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, when no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, then a suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 in which no stand was taken by the respondents that the petitioner has not deposited Rs.10,000/-. Although the suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jodhpur. In the said judgment, it is no where observed that Rs.10,000/- were not deposited by the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent – Municipal Corporation vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to get any refund at this belated stage because the suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 and this writ petition has been filed in the year 2008. Further, it is argued that suit was to be filed by the petitioner within a period of three years, which has not been filed by him, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to recover any amount from the respondents. I am strange that the statutory authority of the welfare State is taking such type of plea that although Rs.10,000/- was deposited but record is not 3 available, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether amount was deposited or not. I have also perused the judgment passed by Civil Judge in which there is no specific averment made by the respondents that no amount was deposited by the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has deposited Rs.10,000/- upon which receipt Annexure- 1 was issued by the respondents and if no allotment is made then it is statutory duty of the concerned authority to refund the amount and they cannot be permitted to take plea of limitation because it is the duty of the welfare State to protect the rights and interests of the citizens. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, which is said to be deposited by the petitioner in the year 1985 within a period of one month from today along with interest @ 6% per annum. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun