The Bombay High Court dismissed writ as money claim not maintainable in the matter of recovery of excess charges paid towards excise supervisory staff.
The petitioner in the present matter is M/s. Bombay Distributors. The writ petition was espoused on the grounds that respondents ought to have recovered the supervision charges or cost in accordance with the circulars, which direct to recover the proportionate charges.
Further, the cost of supervision means the actual cost incurred by the respondents and not the sanctioned post, and only one officer and one constable were looking after the charge of several establishments when they were recovering full charges from each establishment.
D. B. Savant, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 provides for grant of various licenses for manufacture, sale, and possession of the various intoxicants mentioned in the said Act. Under the provisions of the said Act, various rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 143 of the said Act, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the said Act.
The counsel further contended that according to the Petitioner, they were liable only to pay half of the charges towards cost of excise supervision. Hence, excess amount was paid by the Petitioner being an amount of Rs.1,12,905/-, when actually what was payable was Rs.56,452.50/-. So also, from September, 1998 till November, 1999 the Petitioners paid the charges equivalent to salary of one constable.
Himanshu Takke, Assistant Government Pleader, opposed this Writ Petition and submitted that the present Petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners are seeking to recover amounts from the Respondents which amounts to making a money claim in a Writ Petition. He further submitted that disputed question of facts is involved, hence, this court should not entertain this Petition.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajesh S Patil and GS Kulkarni comprising observed that “In the present case, the claim of the Petitioners that separate supervision staff was not provided, and the officer as well as the constable were also working in different establishments, is not admitted by the Respondents. The Petitioner has contended that at the relevant time there was one officer, looking after two Trades and one constable, looking after two Trades.”
“Adverting to the above settled principles of law and as made applicable to the facts of the case, we are of the clear opinion that the present petition, which is simplicitor for a money claim, would not be maintainable” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
