Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6023/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6023 of 2011
=====================================
MAKWANA
KUBERBHAI SHIVABHAI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR ASHISH B DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR NIRAG PATHAK, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
- 2.
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 23/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 On
16th August 2011, the Court passed an order. Para 3 of
that order reads as under:
“Prima
facie, contents of letter dated 22.05.2008 (which is page No. 44,
Annexure ‘F’) are not on line with the award and order passed by the
learned Judge of Labour Court on 16.12.2006.”
1.1 Learned
advocate Mr. Desai for the petitioners was granted time to take
instructions as to under what
circumstances, letter dated 22nd May 2008 was written by
petitioner No. 1.
2.0 Today,
when the matter is called out, the learned advocate for the
petitioners tried to explain the contents of letter dated
22nd
May 2008, which is of no consequence.
2.1 It
is a settled position of law that if any amount is paid under
mistake, it can always be recovered by the authority.
2.2 At
this juncture, the Court deems it proper to put it on record that,
there can be an inference drawn for ‘unauthorized payment’ that the
person, who has received the same, has obtained the same from the
concerned authority for ‘extraneous considerations’. It is also a
fact of which judicial notice can be taken that the authorities
(State Government and other local authorities) work through
human agency and human agency is prone to such mistake/mischief and
therefore, it is a settled position of law that, if an amount is paid
under mistake (the word used ‘mistake’ is only to put it lightly,
otherwise, it could have been stated that the amount which is
obtained by the beneficiary for ‘extraneous considerations’) can
always be recovered.
3.0 Present
is the case, wherein, the challenge is to an order by which, the
authority has sought recovery of the amount paid by mistake. That is
why, the Court finds no substance in the petition. The same is
dismissed. Notice is discharged.
3.1 Only
because the workmen are before this Court, the Court takes lenient
view in the matter and does not impose any cost and does not pass any
further strictures against the petitioners.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top