Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner participated in the excise auction in respect of Group Excise Shops of District Mau for the Excise Year 1992-93. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 9,35,000/- (Rupees nine lac thirty five thousand only) were illegally forfeited under order of the Collector, Mau dated 30th March, 1992. Feeling aggrieved by such forfeiture order of the Collector, Mau, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 951 (Tax) of 1992. This Court allowed the writ petition, by means of the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1994 and the order of forfeiture was quashed. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow was directed to consider the application for refund of the forfeited amount, if an application is made within six months from the date of the order (A copy of the judgment and order of this Court dated 29th November, 1994 has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The operative portion of the said judgment and order of this Court reads as follows :

“Even otherwise we feel that if the matter was postponed by the authorities for auction already held on 12th March, 1992, if the respondents have to accept his bid then it was incumbent upon the authorities to inform the petitioner, in case, there is any default in furnishing of the security for a bid having been accepted on the said date. Thus even on merit we found respondents’ averments not sustainable. Accordingly, the present recovery proceedings against the petitioner is not sustainable and we quash the recovery certificates dated 20.10.1992 (Annexures 30 to 23 of the writ petition) and also impugned order dated 30th March, 1992 passed by the respondents 3 and 5, which is Annexures 8 and 9 of the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further urged the refund of the amount, which is pending before the respondent No. 2 in case, the petitioners make an application for refund of the amount deposited for the said auction, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed along with aforesaid application, the authority will pass appropriate order after ascertaining the amount in deposit.

With these observations this writ petition is allowed with costs.

Sd/- A.P. Misra

Date : 28.11.1994 Sd/- P. N. Nag”

3. The petitioner, accordingly, made an application for refund of the forfeited amount. The application was allowed by the Additional Excise Commissioner vide order dated 14th November, 1995 and it was directed that sum of Rs. 9,35,000 (Rupees nine lac thirty five thousand only) be refunded to the applicant. The operative portion of the said order of the Additional Excise Commissioner reads as follows :

Manniye Uchch Nyayalaya, Allahabad ke adeshanushar ish dhanrashi ki vapsi avedakgano ko ki jani hai. Manniye Uchch Nyayalaya, Allahabad ke adesh Civil Misc. Writ Petition San. 951 of 1992 ke antargat avedakon ko kiya jana apekshit hai. Deposit ki dhanrashi Rupaya 9,35,000/- (Nau Lakh Paintish Hajar rupaye) ki vapsi avedakon ko kar diya jaye.

Ha./

Apathaniy

(D.K. Govil)

Apar Abkari Ayukt

(Licensing avam Audyogik Vikas)

14.11.95 Uttar Pradesh”

4. Despite the order so passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner, the money in fact was not returned to the petitioner for nearly four years and it was only on 14th September, 1999 that the money in fact was re-paid to the petitioner.

5. It may be recorded that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 28th November, 1994 had been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by means of special leave petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (S) 13395 of 1995 (State of U.P. and others v. Ashok Kumar and others). The Special Leave Petition filed by the Department has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment and order dated 14th July, 1995. Consequently the jud