- (1.) The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction notice dated 4.12.1995, published in a section of press, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to act in pursuance of the government orders dated 21.4.1981 and 16.6.1992 and to allow the petitioner to continue to run his theka for realisation of toll tax over the Gange Pull in District Mirzapur up to 31.3.1997 while disposing of the representations of the petitioner and not to interfere with the petitioner's continuing as such; and not to grant theka of the same to any other person. (c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed."
(2.) The High Court by the impugned order, did not grant reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. On the other hand, the reliefs sought for were negatived by the High Court, but the High Court gave direction to the appellants to make refund of proportionate amount of contract for the period from 1.4.1995 to 8.5.1995 to the respondent with interest @18% per annum and also damages @ 15% per annum.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the High Court was not justified in giving direction to refund, which was not at all sought for by the respondent in the writ petition; the High Court having negatived the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, has exceeded its jurisdiction in making an order of refund of amount. He added that the High Court was also not right in ordering for refund of the amount without even verifying whether the entire amount of contract was deposited with the authorities and whether there was delay on account of the respondent or on account of the appellants in not allowing the respondent to carry on the contract work from 1.4.1995 to 8.5.1995. It was the further submission of the learned counsel that if a disputed question of fact did arise for consideration, in that event the remedy for the respondent was to go to a civil court.;