IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.09.2010 COCP No.260 of 2001 The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Shri Hardev Singh and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 14.09.1999. The writ petition of the petitioner was to seek refund of the amount of Urban Development Cess illegally recovered from the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed in terms of another order passed in CWP No.1600 of 1999 on the same day. It has been pointed out by Mr. Pathela that the judgment of this Court in CWP No.1600 of 1999 has since been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2006. The order in the aforesaid appeal reads as under : “SLP(C) Nos.222271-22276/2001: Leave granted. This Court in C.A.Nos.4451-68/1991; State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Naranjan Dass Doomra Rice & General Mills & Ors. upheld the finding of the High Court to the extent that the imposition of cess of Urban Development Cess on the sale and purchase of Kapas (raw cotton), narma and oil seeds was held COCP No.260 of 2001 to be invalid. In that case the High Court while allowing the writ petition had directed refund of the cess collected by the Municipal authorities together with 12% interest per annum. When the appeals were preferred by way of special leave petitions, this Court granted leave and also directed that in the event it was found that the writ petitioners/respondents were entitled to return of the cess collected from them, it would be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Ultimately, when the appeal itself was dismissed by this Court, by its order dated 25.11.97 this Court directed the Municipal Authorities to refund to the respondents/writ petitioners the amount collected from them as and by way of cess with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of collection till the dates of payments. Taking advantage of the decision striking down the collection of cess, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming similar orders of refund. The High Court by the judgment impugned in this appeal dismissed the writ petition relying on the decision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1997 (5) SCC 536. On the basis of that judgment the High Court found two grounds on which the appellant’s plea for refund was disallowed. The first ground was that the appellant had not denied the averments made by the Municipal Authorities that the appellant had already passed on the burden of development cess to the buyers/consumers. The second ground on which the writ petition was dismissed was that the writ petitioner not having independently approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the cess, could not take advantage of the directions contained therein. An additional ground of limitation had been raised by the Municipal Authorities which was not decided by the High Court in view of its finding on these two issues. The factual finding of the High Court on the first ground clearly shows that this case is squarely covered by the decision in Mafatlal Industries and the High Court was right in 2 COCP No.260 of 2001 disallowing the writ petition. As far as the direction regarding refund was concerned, although the finding in the decision of State of Punjab Vs. Naranjan Dass Doomra Rice & General Mills and Ors. (supra) as to the unconstitutionality of the cess was one which benefited the appellant, nevertheless the direction for refund of the amounts collected was limited strictly to the writ petitioners therein. The appellant cannot take advantage of that particular direction without crossing the hurdle of Mafatlal Industries. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs. C.A.Nos.2558/2001, CA Nos.2559/2001 & CA Nos.2560/2001: In view of the decision in C.A.Nos.4451-68/1991, these appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. SLP (C) Nos.797-798/2002: Leave granted. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the decision in ca Nos.4451-68 of 1991.” Mr. Pathela, therefore, contends that the directions for refund cannot be sustained in the present case ordered without considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1997 (5) SCC 536. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents was dismissed, may be for not condoning the delay in filing of such appeal. Therefore, the respondents are bound by the judgment passed by this Court on 14.09.1999 in a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the Municipal Council. I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the principle of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble 3 COCP No.260 of 2001 Supreme Court that the order of refund of cess could not be passed without considering the question of undue enrichment as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case (supra), therefore, the petitioner cannot rely upon the order passed in a writ petition filed by it against the Municipal Council. The basis of the said judgment in CWP No.1600 of 1999 has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order reproduced above. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is dismissed. 16.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 4