Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41339 of 2010 Petitioner :- Moti Lal Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector Chitrakoot And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for interest on
Rs.10,50,000/- deposited by him as an auction purchaser of
the property of Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra sold in
pursuance to the orders passed by the Collector recovering
the amount assessed to be misappropriated as the
Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Rajapur, District
Banda.
The removal of Sri Ghanshyam Das Mishra as Chairman of
the Town Area Committee was set aside by this court. After
the judgment, the District Magistrate decided to recover the
amount. The proceeding of auction was stayed in writ
petition No. 7314 of 2003. By judgment and order dated
13.10.2009. we allowed the writ petition with the finding that
the principles of natural justice were violated. The District
Magistrate has now given opportunity to Sri Ghanshyam Das
Mishra before quantifying the loss. A direction was issued to
the District Magistrate, making it open to him, to cause an
inquiry into the loss caused to the Town Area in accordance
with the procedure provided under the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1961, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to him.
During the course of hearing, Sri Raja Singh learned counsel
appearing for Sri Moti Lal Sonkar, the present petitioner
(auction purchaser), requested that since no benefit has
been received by him as auction purchaser, the amount
deposited by him may be returned. We passed the orders
accordingly.
Now by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for award
of interest over the refunded amount of Rs.10,50,000/- with
effect from the date of auction i.e. 7.2.2003 till the date of
refund i.e. 17.2.2010.
We do not find any good ground to consider the prayer for
interest on the amount deposited with the State
Government, and refunded to the petitioner. It is true that the
petitioner could not get the benefit of the amount deposited
for six years on account of interim order but that the
petitioner through his counsel voluntarily made a statement
to return the money. There was no prayer at the time of
hearing of the writ petition to award interest. The petitioner
was taking a chance. He could have either applied for
withdrawal of the amount when the interim orders were
passed, or requested for deposit of the amount in the
interest bearing fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. He
took a chance in the litigation in which he did not succeed,
and thereafter made a statement on his own, to return the
amount. We cannot saddle state with penalty of interest in
such case.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
nethra