Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 23rd February 2020
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2020)
Matter
The District Collector, Satara (Respondnent) had issued a notice of public auction for auctioning the sand blocks of Krishna river in 2012. Since, the Appellant had submitted the highest bid for excavation of sand, he was awarded the tender. A total deposit of Rs. 62, 26, 085/- was made by the Appellant towards allotment of sand block. However, since the sand block was at a distance of about 100ft. from the school, the villagers had opposed the excavation of sand. Hence, the Appellant approached the Revenue Minister (Government of Maharashtra) for the refund of the auction amount.
The Appellant had made several representations, but received no response. Thereafter, it had filed a writ petition before the HC. The HC refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts. The Appellant approached the SC
Held
The Court found that certain facts were undisputed in this matter. The Appellant was indeed the highest bidder for the sand block in question. He had deposited a certain amount towards allotment of sand block. However, neither the possession of the sand block was given to the Appellant nor did the excavation of the sand take place. This position could be confirmed by the Panchnama prepared by the Circle Officer and reiterated by the Tehsildar in his report submitted to the Collector. The Sub-Divisional Officer also confirmed this position in his report to the Collector. The Collector had directed his subordinates to initiate the process for refund of the amount deposited by the Appellant. Subsequently, it was found that the file was misplaced and hence, the Appellant was denied the refund.
The Court found that the denial of the refund on the part of the Respondents was simply unreasonable. The Court observed that the action of the Appellant in denying the refund when the Respondents had failed to obtain possession of the sand block was simply “a smack of arbitrariness”.
The Court reiterated that the State should acts as a model litigant. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International [(1979) 4 SCC 176] wherein the Court held that Government and public authorities should not rely on technical pleas for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claims of citizens. If the Government does so it will be upheld by the Court provided that the plea is well-founded. Otherwise the Government should avoid taking up technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen [Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737].
Leave a Reply