Case: POPATRAO VYANKATRAO PATIL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  &amp; ORS

reiterated by the Tehsildar, Karad – respondent No.4 in his report submitted to the Collector - respondent No.2 dated 9.8.2012. The Sub-Divisional 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 Sub-Divisional Officer also does not dispute the said position. However, he directed his subordinates to submit original file of the appellants 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, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector found that neither the possession of the sand block was handed over to the appellant nor the excavation of 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 Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal (2010) 1 SCC 512 : 6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf. 7. In Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India [(1974) 3 SCC 554 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 89] this Court extracted with approval the following statement [from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court (P.P. Abubacker case [Ed.: P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103 : ILR (1971) 2 Ker 490 : 1971 Ker LJ 723] , AIR pp. 107-08, para 5)]: (SCC p. 562, para 25) 25. … 5. … The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the States interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The layout on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957. 8. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International [(1979) 4 SCC 176] this Court held: (SCC p. 177, para 2) 2. … It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public au- thority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. 9. In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [(1985) 3 SCC 737] this Court held: (SCC p. 741, para 3) 3. … The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule6. 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 facts7. 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 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 Sub-Divisional 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 Sub-Divisional Officer also does not dispute the said position. However, he directed his subordinates to submit original file of the appellants sand block with his office for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant8. It appears, that subsequently after all the authorities including Circle Officer, Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector found that neither the possession of the sand block was handed over to the appellant nor the excavation of 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 suit10. 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.