SRP BREWERIES PVT LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

1. The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.2,62,35,615/-. The petitioner also seeks a direction declaring that said recovery was illegal, and unconstitutional.

2. The brief facts are that, the petitioner is a licensed liquor vendor. On 30.06.2017, a show cause was issued to him, where certain discrepancies in KUMAR KAURAV relation to stock verification were alleged. Thereafter, FIR No.432/2017 was registered under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, where one of the petitioners’ employees, namely Kapil Kumar Arora was arrayed as an accused. The chargesheet against the same was filed on 24.08.2022.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never implicated in said criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that, on account of his death, the proceedings against the accused was abated vide order dated 22.09.2022. After filing of the charge-sheet, certain documents, that would, according to him, demonstrate the arbitrary and illegal acts of the officials of the respondent-Department came to his knowledge.

4. The Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

5. This Court is conscious that a writ petition seeking refund of money is not to be rejected merely because the relief claimed is monetary in nature, especially when the refund is claimed due to an illegality alleged on part of the State, without authority of law. At the same time, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and depends on the facts of each case. Ordinarily, the writ Court would exercise jurisdiction, where the material facts on record are not seriously disputed, and the absence of the authority to retain the amount is apparent from the record.

6. The present case does not fall into that category. The petitioner herein seeks to reopen events of the year 2017, and relies upon coercion that is said to have operated at that time. The amount refund whereof is sought for had also been deposited in the year 2017. The chargesheet, on which reliance is placed to explain the later discovery of documents, was filed on 24.08.2022. The present petition, however, had been filed only in the year 2026.

7. The pendency of criminal proceedings against an employee of the petitioner cannot, by itself, justify the petitioner’s failure to pursue its own monetary claim within a reasonable time. The petitioner had always been aware of the deposit made by him, and the circumstances therein. The later filing of the chargesheet may have supplied additional material, but it cannot explain the failure to challenge the deposited amount for several years.

8. In State of Maharashtra v Digambar[1], the Supreme Court has held that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must explain laches and undue delay to the satisfaction of the Court in order to claim equitable relief. When the relief sought by the person is against a State, based on wrongful executive action, the burden to explain such delay is much higher, since passage of time may prejudice the State in producing the relevant record, or the officers involved.

9. The relief sought in the present petition is, in substance, a direction for refund of the deposited money. The question as to whether the said amount was in fact deposited under duress or coercion, and whether there was any illegality on the part of the officials of the respondent department are not evident from the material on record. These questions would require a close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence.

10. For all those reasons, at this point of time, the Court is not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction and to direct a refund of the amount in question.

11. The petition is, accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall, however, 1995 SCC (4) 683, para 14 be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

JUDGE APRIL 22, 2026