Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. Haryana

1170 A SHIV SHANKER D.\L MILLS ETC. ETC. _v._ STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. _November_ 9; 1979 B [V. R. KRJSllNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK AND _A._ D. KosHAL, JJ.] _Constitution_ _of_ _India_ 1950, _Artich;_ _226-1/igh_ _Court_ _/ioldin:_.:_ _levy_ _Ufegal-_ _Conscqe11tial liability to ref u11d-'A ltcrnative rcn1edj' arailable-Jurisdiction_ _under-Whether_ _barred._ ' ##### I #### c D E F G H In _Kewal K1ishan Puri_ v. _State_ _uf_ _Punjab and others_ [1979J 3 S.C.R. page 1217, this Court struck down payn1ent of marki:t fees at the inl.'.rcased rate of 3 per cent (raised frorn the original 2 per cent) under lfaryana Act No. 22 of 1977. A consequential liability was therefore ca.st on the market committees to refund the excess amounts collected. The appellants and the petitioners who had paid under n1istake the excess sums demanded a direction to the effect that these amounts be refunded. On the que~tion of refund of the, execs.'i arnounts collected by the J}]arkct committees. HELD : 1. Where public botiies under colour of public laws recover people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the· _dhan11a_ of tflt;; situation admits of no equivocation. There is no hnv of limitation especially for public bodies on the virtue of returning what \\'O<; wrongly recovered to \vhom it bidongs, In our jurisprud<;>nce it is not palatable to turn down the prayer for high prerogative writs on the negative plea of alternative remedy, since the root principle of law married to justice, is _ubi_ _jus_ _ibi_ _rc11u:diu1n._ (1172 G·H] 2. In our jurisdktion, social justice is a pervasive preeience and save in .speciGl situation it is fair to be guided by the strategy of equity by asking those \Vho claim the scr\•ices of the ju<licial process to en1b1 a(.;c the basic rules of distributive justice, while n1oul<ling the relief by consenting to restore little sums taken in little transactions from litt\e persons to whon1 they belong. [1173 El 3. Article 226 grants an cxtraordinr:iry re1ncdy which i-; essentially discrc· tionary, nlthough found~d on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court exercising this fl~xible power to pass such orders as public interc_,, dictotes und equity projecLi;;. [1174 D] In the instant case although the refund of cxce:-.s collections might be legally due to the traders, many of the traders had themselves recovered the excess percentage from the next purchasers. To the extent the traders bad paid out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had in turn collected from elsewhere. It would be he.rd to leave every agriculturist to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible sums which cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. [1173 F-H] SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS _v._ HARYANA _(Krishna_ _Tyer,_ J.) 1171 4. _111_ _Newabgani_ _Sugar_ _Mills_ v. _Union_ _of_ _India and others_ [1976] 1 SCR **A** **.:803** **this** **Cou11** **in** **a** **similar** **situation** **devised** **a** **new** **prucedure** **to** **deal** **\vith** **a** **new** **situation** **\vhere** **equity** **demanded** **redistribution** **but** **procedur.al** **expensi,'e-** **ness** **and** **cu111bcrson1ent:ss** **effectively** **tfiwarted** **legal** **actions.** **[1173** **li·ll74** **Al** **5.** **Situations** **without** **precedent** **demand** **remedies** **v1ithout** preced [1] ~nt. **[1174** **B]** **[The** **Court** **devised** **a** **scheme** **uf** **refund** **by** **the** **market** **committees** **and** **redistribution of** **the** **small** **amounts** **to** **those** **from** **whom** **unwarranted** **collec-** tions had been made.] [1174 CJ Ovrr. APPELLATE luRISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3220-3234 of 1979. **B** Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated #### 11-7-79, 23-8-79, 8-8-79, 15-10-79, 30-7-79, 18-9-79, 22-10-79, c 18-10-79, 29-10-79, 16-10-79, and 12-10-79 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Peittions Nos. 2306, 2966, 2737. 3617, 2588, 3277, 3749, 3697, 3820, 3625, 3624 and 315-317/79 respectively. # I AND **D** Writ Petitions No. 892, 918, 921, 979-980, 1057-1058, 1095, 1234, 1273, 1051, 997, 940 and 981/79. (Under ArJiclc 32 of the Constitution) _Dr._ _Y._ _S._ _Chitale_ (CA 3220/79), _R._ _A._ _Gupta, Adarsh Goel_ and ###### S. K. Goel, for the Appellant in CA 3220/79 and 3222/79 for the E Petitioner in W.P. 892, 918 and 921/79. _B._ _Datta_ and _K. K._ _Manchanda_ for the Appellant in CA 3221/ 79, 3224-3226/79. _A nil_ _B._ _Dewan, Adarsh Goel,_ S. _K._ _Goel,_ and _R._ _A._ _Gupta_ for 1he Appellant in CA 3323/79. F _Adarslz_ _K._ _Goel,_ S. _K._ Go~! and _R._ _A._ _Gupta_ for the Appellants in _CA_ 3222/79, for the Petitioner in WP 892/79, 918/79, 921/79. _A._ _K._ _Goel_ and S. _K._ _Goel_ for the Petitioner in WP 979 /79. _B._ _Datta_ and _K. K._ _Manchanda_ for the Petitioner ~n WP 980/79. _Sarwa Mitter, Ved Prakash Gael_ and _B._ S. _Mali//_ for the Peti**tioner.** -~· _P .. Iha, Cyan Chand_ _D!mrt'wala_ and _Sanjee_ _Walia_ fc.r the Pel!t10ner m WP 1057-58/79. _M._ _P._ _Iha_ and _P._ C. _Khungu_ for the Petitioner in W.P. 1095/79. ·. _N. D. Garg_ and _T._ _L._ _Garg_ for the Petitioner in WP 123•1/79 21-743 SCI/79 . G **H** **A** **B** #### **c** **D** E I I 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R. _R._ _K. Garg_ (WP 892/79 and CA 3220/79) _Gian Singh_ and S. C. Patel for the Respondents 2-3 in CAs. 3220/79, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3224 and for the Respondent in WP 892/79, 921, 979, 981,. 1057-58/79, 1273, 997 and for Respondent in CA 3230, 3225/79. _Hardev Singh_ and _R._ _S. Sodhi_ for the Respondent in WP 918/ 79 and 980/79, 1095 and 1234/79. _Adarsh Goel_ and _Gyan Sudha Misra_ for the Petitioner in WP 1273/79. The Order of the Court was delivered by **F** G **H** KRISHNA IYER, J. This big bunch of writ petitions shows how litigation has a habit of proliferation in onr proccssual system since cases are considered in isolation, not in th~ir comprehensive implications and docket management is an art awaiting its Indian dawn. The facts, being admitted, obviate debate. All these appellants and writ petitioners had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3 per cent (raised from the original 2 per cent) under Haryana Act No. 32 of 1977. Many dealers challenged the levies as unconstitutional, and this Court, in a series of appeals (C.A. Nos. 1083 of 1977 etc.)(') rule<l that the ~xcess of 1 per cent over the original rate of 2 per cent was _ultra_ _vires._ This cast a· consequential liability on the market committees to refund the illegal portion. They were not so ordered probably because they could not straightway be quantified. The petitioners who had, under mistake, paid large sums which, after the decision of this Conrt holding the levy illegal, have become refundable, demand a direction to that effect to the market committees concerned. The~e cannot be any dispute about the obligation or the amounts since the market committees have accounts of coll~ctions and are willing lo disgorge the excess sums. Indeed, if they file suits within the limitation period, decrees must surely follow. What the period of limitation is and whether Art. 226 will apply arc moot as is evident from the High Court's judgment, but we am not called upon to pronounce on either point in the view we take. Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the _dharma_ of the **situation admits of no equivocation.** **There is** **no** **law** **of** **!imitation.** espccialiy for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered lo whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to our jurisprudence to tum down the prayer for high prerogative writs, on the negative plea of 'alternative remedy', since the root principle of (I) Kewal Krishan Puri _v._ State of Punjab [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1217. ### ---·· SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 1173 law married to justice, is _ubi jus ibi remedium._ Long a,go Dicey wrote: "The saw _ubi jus ibi remedium,_ becomes from this Point of view something more important than a mere tautological proposition. In its bearing upon constitutional law, it means that the Englishmen whose labours gradually formed the complicated set of laws and institutions which we call the Constitution, fixed their minds far more intently on providing remedies for the enforcement of particular rights or for averting definite wrongs, than upon any declarations of the Rights of Man or Englishmen .... The Con stitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the separate States are embodied in written or printed docu· mcnts, and contain declaration of rights. But the statesmen of America have shown an unrivalled skill in providing means for giving legal security to the rights declared by American Constitutions. The rule o[ law is as marked a foatun of the United States as of England." Another point. In our jurisdiction, social justice is a pervasive presence; and so, save in special situations it is fair to be guided by tho strategy of equity by asking those who claim the service of the judicial process to embrace the basic rule of distribulive justice, while moulding the relief, by consenting to restore little sums, taken in little transactions, from )ittlc persons, to whom they belong. When we reminded counsel 011 both sides of these guidelines of Good· Samaritan jurisprudence and desired consensual disposal of these cases, we gratifyingly found wdcome echo and we appreciatively record this stance. The counsel for the market committees pointed out that although refund of excess collections might be legally due to the traders many of the traders had themselves recovered this excess percentage from the next purchasers. So much so, these tiny tittles if they arc to return to the original payers, should revert to the next purchasers themselves. The traders who are the petitioners have no mor.c right to keep such small sums than the market committees themselves. Tu th;; extent to which the traders had paid out o[ their own, of rnursc. they were en!itled to keep them, but not where they had, in tum. col'.ected from elsewhere. It would be hard to leave every a:;ricultunst to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible sums which cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. Many a little makes a mickle. A similar situation arose in _Newabganj Sugar_ A- ., B #### c D E F G • H **.A** 'B ·C 1I 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R. _Mill.i_ _case(')_ where this Court devised a new procedure to deal with a new situation where equity demanded redistribution but procedmal expensiveness and cumbersomeness effectively thwarted such legal actions by the "small" many. Situations without precedent demand remedies without precedent. We indicated to counsel that the procedure adopkd in the _Newabganj_ _Sugar_ _Mills_ case (supra) may usefully be adapted to the present case. In broad principle, counsel did agree, and we proceed Ofl that footing, that we devise a scheme of refund by the market committees and redistribution, to the extent indicated above, of small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collections had been made, may be unwittingly, by **the** traders who are appellants or petitioners. Article 226 grants an extra-ordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. "Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private in!erests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest. ... "(') Keeping in mind these guidelines we make the following directions: I. Subject to the directions given below, all the sums collected 'F by the \Wious market committees who are respondents in these various writ petitions or appeals shall be liable to be paid into the High Court of Punjab and Haryana within one week of intimation by the Registrar of the amount so liable to be paid into the court . . IT. A stateme'1t of the amounts collected in excess (1 % ) shall be ·f; put into this court by the dealers with copies to the various market committees aforesaid _within_ 10 _days from today,_ and if there is any difference between the parties it shall be brought to the notice of this Court in the shape of miscellaneous petitions. On final orders, 'if any, passed thereon by this Court, thos() amounts, as so determined, shall be treated as final. _**H**_ (1) [l,76] 1 S.C.R. R03. (2) _21_ Am. Jur. 2Jd Equity p. 626. \ SH!VSHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA _(Krishna Iyer,_ J.) I I 7 5 III. The Registrar of the High Court shall isime public notice and otherwise give due publicity to the fact that dealers who have not passed on the liabilities to others and others who have contributed to or paid the excess one per cent cover\'d by these writ petitions and appeals may make claims for such sums as are due to them from him within one month or such other period as he may fix. The Registrar shall scrutinise such claims and ascertain the sums so proved. He will thereupon demand of all the market committees concerned payment into the Registry of such sums in regard to which proo[ of claims have been made. On such intimation, the market committees shall pay into the Registry the amounts so demanded by the Registrar within one week of such intimation. The amount shall be paid together with interest at 10 per cent per annum from today upto the date of deposit with the Registrar. IV. It shall be open to the Registrar to make such periodical claims on appropriate proof by claimants on the lines slatd above. V. He will devise the mechanics of processing the claims as best as he may and, in the event of dispute, may refer to the High CO'Dr~ for its decision of such disputes, _if_ _he_ _thinks_ _it_ _necessa"··_ Otherwise, he may dispose of the objections finally. VI. If any further directions regarding the mechanics of the claim of refund or otherwise are found necessary from this Court, the High Court will report about such matter to this Court and orders made thereon will bind the parties. VII. If parties eligible for repayment of amounts do not claim within one year from today the Registrar will not entertain any further claims. It will be open to such parties to pursue their remedies for recovery for any sums that may be due to th~m. VIII. Each State Marketing Board will deposit within 10 days frnm today a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the Registrar for ~he preliminary expenses of publicity and other incidentals for the implementation of the directions given above. Any unexpended amount, at the end of one year, will be repaid to the respective State Marketing Board. IX. We further direct that the unclaimed amounts, if any, shall be permitted to be used by the respective Marketing Committee~ for the purposes falling within the statute as interpreted by this Court in ilie CA No. 1083/77. A B ##### c D E F G ## " 1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] **l** **S.C.11..** - **A** These appeals and writ petitions are disposed of on the above lines, the winners being both the sides before us, the invisible small consumers and above all, justice, equity and gocd conscience to the inarticulate community, which is the functional triumph of law in action within hailing distance of each other. **B** We wind up with a word of satisfaction that each on~ has had his meed and in recognition thereof we direct the parties to bear their own costs. N.V.K.