KRISHNAN KUMAR BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD rival parties.

(2.) PERUSED petition and counter-affidavit.

(3.) AT the outset, Shri Jetly, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relying upon a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Suganmal vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1740, wherein the Apex Court has held that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution solely praying for issue of writ of mandamus, directing the State to refund money alleged to have been illegally collected by the State is not ordinarily maintainable. He also placed reliance on one another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Oriental Enterprises reported in 1998 (99) ELT 193 to support his submission.