1. Tender for sand excavation — Payment of auction amount — Failure to grant possession — Denial of refund — Writ petition filed under Article 226. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 614
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020, SLP (C) No. 5290 of 2019
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Important Points
The State should act as a model litigant and should not put forth false, frivolous, or technical contentions to obstruct the path of justice. The High Court has the plenary power to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and has the discretion to entertain or not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Subject
Civil Law - Contract Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Refund - Sand Block Auction - [The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 59, The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968 - Rule 10, The Constitution of India - Article 226] - The court discussed the maintainability of a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and the power of the High Court to entertain such petitions. It highlighted the legal principles related to the maintainability of a writ petition, the plenary power of the High Court, and the discretion to entertain or not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the State should act as a model litigant and should not put forth false, frivolous, or technical contentions to obstruct the path of justice. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the entire amount received from him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant participated in a public auction for sand blocks but was not put in possession of the sand block despite depositing the entire amount. The authorities denied the refund of the amount, citing the loss of the file as the reason.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court was not justified in relegating the appellant to file a suit. The denial of the refund by the authorities was unreasonable and arbitrary, violating the constitutional mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of the refund of the auction amount to the appellant despite the authorities' failure to give possession of the sand block, which prevented the appellant from excavating the sand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the maintainability of a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact, the plenary power of the High Court, and the legal principle that the State should act as a model litigant. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the entire amount received from him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to refund the entire amount received from the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of writ petition involving disputed questions of fact — Whether the petitioner should be relegated to a civil suit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Denial of refund due to lost administrative files is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14, justifying the exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Writ courts may entertain petitions involving disputed facts if State action is arbitrary or unreasonable, and the State must act as a model litigant. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Direction to refund auction amount with interest. (Para 11 )
6. Can a writ petition under Article 226 be maintained if it involves disputed questions of fact?
Yes. While High Courts are generally slow to entertain such petitions, it is a rule of self-restraint, not an absolute bar. If facts do not require elaborate evidence and State action is arbitrary or unreasonable, violating Article 14, the court may exercise its plenary jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the expected conduct of the State when acting as a litigant in court?
The State should act as a model litigant, avoiding false, frivolous, or technical contentions to obstruct justice. It should not rely on technical pleas to defeat legitimate claims of citizens and should do what is fair and just. (Para 9 )
8. Is a bidder entitled to a refund if the State fails to provide possession of the auctioned block?
Yes. If the bidder has deposited the auction amount but possession is not granted for reasons not attributable to the bidder, and no excavation has occurred, the denial of a refund is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017 thereby, declining to entertain the petition since the petition involves question of facts.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
The respondent-District Collector, Satara had issued a notice of public auction for auctioning the sand blocks of Krishna river in the year 2012. The appellant had submitted his bid for excavation of sand insofar as Gat No. 956A, Plot No. 2 at village Rethare Khurd, Taluka Karad. The agreed quantity of excavation was 8500 brass. The appellant’s bid being the highest i.e. Rs. 59,75,000/- he was awarded the tender.
On 3.1.2012, the appellant deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as one-fourth (1/4th) amount of auction with Government treasury. On 16.1.2012, the appellant deposited remaining auction amount of Rs. 44,83,500. The appellant also deposited Rs. 1,19,500/- towards environmental cost and Rs. 1,23,085/- towards income tax. As such, the total deposit made by the appellant was Rs. 62,26,085/- towards allotment of sand block.
However, since the said sand block was at a distance of about 100 ft. from the school, the villagers of Rethare Khurd village had opposed the excavation of sand. As such, though the appellant had deposited the entire amount, he was not put in possession of the said sand block. In the circumstances, the appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra for refund of the auction amount. As the appellant’s representation was sent to the Collector, Satara to make enquiry, the Collector, Satara (respondent No. 2 herein) in turn, by letter dated 11.6.2012 sought a report from the Tehsildar, Karad.
On 15.6.2012, statement of the appellant came to be recorded by the Circle Officer, Kale (respondent No. 5 herein). He also prepared a Panchnama of the sand block in question which exhibited that possession of sand block was never given to the appellant and that there was no excavation of sand from the said sand block.
The Tehsildar, Karad respondent No. 4, submitted a detailed report dated 9.8.2012 to the Collector, Satara pointing out the factual position. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karad-respondent No. 3, in turn, submitted a report on 4.9.2012 reiterating the factual position. It appears, that in the transit the file was lost and as such, though the appellant was not granted possession of the sand block and though yet he had not excavated any sand, the refund of the amount could not be made to him. It appears that there were further correspondences between the authorities and finally, the Desk Officer of the respondent No. 1-State Government vide order dated 25.3.2014 rejected the prayer of the appellant seeking refund of the auction amount.
The appellant again made several representations. Since there was no response, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017. As stated earlier, by the impugned order, the High Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts.
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 rule. In any case, this Court in ABL International Ltd. and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553, has observed thus:
“19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gu
