Calcutta High Court: While criticized the shifting of blame among authorities, a single-judge bench comprising of Shekhar B. Saraf., issued a writ of mandamus and directed the refund of a lapsed deposit amount to the petitioners due to the respondents’ inaction and delay.
Brief Facts
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the respondents in releasing a lapsed deposit amount of Rs. 66,000/- as ordered by the Civil Judge in a pre-emption case which was settled out of court, and the petitioners were given liberty to withdraw the deposit of Rs. 66,000/-.
The petitioners' case is that the release of the deposit was not executed, and the amount was deemed as a lapse deposit. The petitioners repeatedly sought the release of the deposit, but the authorities failed to refund it, leading to the present writ petition.
Petitioners' Contentions
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to the refund of the lapse deposit amount along with interest as per Rule 737 of the Civil Rules and Orders. It was argued that the respondents, being statutory authorities, had an obligation to refund the amount but remained silent. The petitioners claimed that they were suffering financial loss due to the delay in refunding the amount, which had been in government custody since 2004.
Respondents' Contentions
The respondents denied the allegations of non-repayment and argued that the petition was misconceived and should be dismissed. It was asserted that there was no obligation to refund the amount to the petitioners.
Court's Observations
The Court observed that the petitioners had made a deposit before the Court as evidenced by a letter and application dated 23-06-2008 and the District Judge had repeatedly requested the Accountant General to sanction the refund but was met with administrative reasons and lack of deposit statements.
The Court criticized the authorities’ shifting of blame and administrative inconvenience as insufficient reasons to deny the petitioners’ rightful refund and observed that the petitioners’ right to receive the deposit was clear, and the procrastination by authorities was without logical reasoning and exhibited a lackadaisical attitude.
“The petitioners have a right to receive the said deposit. The procrastination on behalf of the authorities is clearly without any logical reasoning and simpliciter a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the authorities.”
The court held that the inaction and delay were highly deprecated, and “administrative inconvenience or lethargy cannot be reason enough to defy a right for fifteen years”.
Court's Verdict
The Court issued a writ of mandamus against the Accountant General, Government of West Bengal, in accordance with the petitioner’s prayer and directed to sanction and return the lapse deposit amount of Rs. 66,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum to the petitioner within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of.
[Suvendu Kumar Goswami v. Accountant General, Govt. of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2318, order dated 09-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr Suman Dey, Counsel for the State
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharyya and Mr. S. Basu, Counsel for the Respondent 4
Buy Constitution of India HERE
