9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Failure of respondents to take effective steps for adjudication of the matter. 2. Allegations of representations made by the Government and subsequent actions by the petitioner. 3. Lack of counter-affidavit by respondents and reliance on legal precedents regarding estoppel and promissory estoppel. 4. Demonstration of sufferance by the petitioner and lack of controversion by respondents. 5. Granting of relief to the petitioner through a writ of mandamus for refund. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment highlights the failure of the respondents, Union of India and its officers, to actively engage in the adjudication process, despite the issuance of a rule in the case since 1981. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to withdraw an impugned notification, cancel an assessment, and refund an amount wrongfully realized. The court criticized the respondents for not filing affidavits, controverting allegations, or producing records, emphasizing the lack of proactive steps taken by them. 2. The case revolves around allegations that the Government of India made representations through a notification, inducing the petitioner to act to its detriment by entering into contracts for import. The petitioner argued that the respondents were bound by these representations and had no authority to backtrack through a subsequent notification. The court considered the petitioner's reliance on the initial notification and the subsequent actions taken based on it, emphasizing the importance of honoring such representations. 3. The judgment discusses the absence of counter-affidavits from the respondents and references legal precedents regarding estoppel and promissory estoppel. It cites a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need for the government to establish misuse before resiling from promises. The court also refers to another decision highlighting the principles of estoppel and promissory estoppel, underscoring the importance of demonstrating petitioner's sufferance in seeking relief. 4. The court found that the petitioner had adequately demonstrated sufferance, and the allegations were not contested by the respondents. By applying the principles of estoppel and promissory estoppel, the court concluded that there was no impediment to granting relief to the petitioner as requested. The lack of response from the respondents and the demonstrated sufferance of the petitioner weighed in favor of granting relief through the writ of mandamus for the refund. 5. Consequently, the court made the rule absolute and allowed the writ petition, issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the wrongfully realized amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe. The judgment concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs, indicating that the petitioner would not be responsible for bearing any legal expenses related to the case.
|
