http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS ETC. ETC

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1037            1980 SCR  (1)1170  1980 SCC  (2) 437  CITATOR INFO :  F          1985 SC 218  (13,14,15)  R          1985 SC 901  (11)  R          1990 SC 313  (16)  R          1990 SC 772  (24,32)

ACT:      Constitution of  India  1950,  Article  226-High  Court holding levy  illegal- Consequential  liability  to  refund- ’Alternative  remedy’  available-Jurisdiction  under-Whether barred.

HEADNOTE:      In Kewal  Krishan puri  v. State  of Punjab  and others [1979] 3 S.C.R. page 1217, this Court struck down payment of market fees at the increased rate of 3 per cent (raised from the original  2 per cent) under Haryana Act No.22 of 1977. A consequential liability  was therefore  cast on  the  market committees to refund the excess amounts collected.      The appellants  and the  petitioners who had paid under mistake the  excess sums  demanded a direction to the effect that these amounts be refunded.      On  the  question  of  refund  of  the  excess  amounts collected by the market committees. ^      HELD| 1.  Where public  bodies under  colour of  public laws  recover   people’s  money,   later  discovered  to  be erroneous levies,  the dharma  of the situation admits of no equivocation. There  is no  law of limitation especially for public bodies  on the  virtue of  returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. In our jurisprudence 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 remedium.      2. In  our jurisdiction,  social justice is a pervasive presence and  save in  special situation  it is  fair to  be guided by  the strategy  of equity by asking those who claim the services  of the  judicial process  to embrace the basic rules of  distributive justice, while moulding the relief by consenting  to   restore  little   sums  taken   in   little transactions from little persons to whom they belong.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    3. Article  226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is  perfectly open for the court exercising this flexible power to  pass such  orders as  public interest dictates and equity projects.      In the  instant case  although  the  refund  of  excess 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 had paid out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had  in turn collected from elsewhere. It would be hard to leave  every agriculturist  to file a suit or other legal proceeding   for   recovery   of   negligible   sums   which cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. 1171      4. In  Newabganj Sugar  Mills v.  Union  of  India  and others [1976]  1 SCR  803 this Court in a similar  situation devised a  new procedure  to deal with a new situation where equity demanded  redistribution but procedural expensiveness and cumbersomeness effectively thwarted legal actions.      5. Situations without precedent demand remedies without precedent.      [The Court  devised a  scheme of  refund by  the market committees and  redistribution of the small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collections had been made.]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3220- 3234 of 1979.      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, 18-10-79,  29-10-79, 16-10-79, and 12-10-79 of the Punjab and  Haryana High  Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2306, 2966,  2737, 3617, 2588, 3277, 3749, 3697, 3820, 3625, 3624 and 315-317/79 respectively.                             AND      Writ Petitions  No. 892,  918, 921, 979-980, 1057-1058, 1095, 1234, 1273, 1051, 997, 940 and 981/79.      (Under Article 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 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.      Anil B. Dewan, Adarsh Goel, S. K. Goel, and R. A. Gupta for the Appellant in CA 3323/79.      Adarsh K.  Goel, S.  K. Goel  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 in WP 980/79.      Sarwa Mitter,  Ved Prakash Goel and B. S. Malik for the Petitioner.      M. P.  Jha, Gyan  Chand Dhurtwala  and Sanjee Walia for the Petitioner in WP 1057-58/79.      M. P.  Jha and P. C. Khunger for the Petitioner in W.P. 1095/79.      N. D.  Garg and  T. L.  Garg for  the Petitioner  in WP 1234/79. 1172      R.K. Garg  (WP 892/79 and CA 3220/79) Gian Singh and S.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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      KRISHNA IYER, J. This big bunch of writ petitions shows how  litigation   has  a   habit  of  proliferation  in  our processual system  since cases  are considered in isolation, not  in   their  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.) (1)  ruled that the excess 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 Court holding the levy illegal, have become refundable, demand a direction to that  effect to  the market  committees concerned.  There cannot be  any dispute  about the  obligation or the amounts since the market committees have accounts of collections and are willing  to 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 are moot as is evident from the High Court’s judgment, but  we are 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 limitation, especially for public  bodies, on  the virtue  of  returning  what  was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to our  jurisprudence   to  turn   down  the  prayer  for  high prerogative writs,  on the  negative  plea  of  ’alternative remedy’, since the root principle of 1173 law married  to justice,  is ubi  jus ibi remedium. Long ago 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 Constitution of the      United States  and the  Constitutions of  the  separate      States are  embodied in  written or  printed documents,      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 of law is as marked      a feature of the United States as of England."      Another point. In our jurisdiction, social justice is a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

pervasive presence; and so, save in special situations it is fair to  be guided by the strategy of equity by asking those who claim the service of the judicial process to embrace the basic rule  of  distributive  justice,  while  moulding  the relief, by  consenting to  restore  little  sums,  taken  in little transactions,  from  little  persons,  to  whom  they belong.      When  we  reminded  counsel  on  both  sides  of  these guidelines  of  Good  Samaritan  jurisprudence  and  desired consensual disposal  of these  cases, we  gratifyingly found welcome 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 are  to return  to the original payers, should revert to the next purchasers themselves. The traders who  are the  petitioners have no more right to keep such small  sums than  the market  committees themselves. To the extent  to which  the traders had paid out of their own, of course,  they were  entitled to  keep them, but not where they had,  in turn,  collected from  elsewhere. It  would be hard to  leave every  agriculturist 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 1174 Mills case(1)  where this  Court devised  a new procedure to deal  with   a   new   situation   where   equity   demanded redistribution    but     procedural    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 adopted in the Newabganj  Sugar Mills  case  (supra)  may  usefully  be adapted to the present case. In broad principle, counsel did agree, and  we proceed  on 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 interests are involved. Accordingly,      the granting  or withholding  of relief may properly be      dependent   upon    considerations   as    of    public      interest...."(2) Keeping in  mind these  guidelines  we  make  the  following directions:      I. Subject  to the directions given below, all the sums collected  by   the  various   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.      II. A statement of the amounts collected in excess (1%) shall be  put into  this court by the dealers with copies to the various  market committees aforesaid within 10 days from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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,  those amounts,  as  so  determined, shall be treated as final. 1175      III. The Registrar of the High Court shall issue 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 covered  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  proof 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 stated 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  Court for its decision of such disputes, if he  thinks it necessary. 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 them.      VIII. Each State Marketing Board will deposit within 10 days from  today a  sum of  Rs. 5,000/- before the Registrar for  the   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 Committees  for the  purposes falling  within  the statute as interpreted by this Court in the CA No. 1083/77. 1176      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 good conscience  to the inarticulate community, which is the functional triumph  of law in action within hailing distance of each other.      We wind  up with  a word  of satisfaction that each one has had  his meed  and in  recognition thereof we direct the parties to bear their own costs. N.V.K. 1177