Tony Electronics Limited Vs. Acce, Div.-i

appeal - refund--stay--writ--pendency of appeal against an order does not make the order inoperative unless stayed by a higher authority--refund directed to be paid.;petition allowed. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of.....1. the only question for consideration in this case is whether an order dated 20.12.1993 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the collector (appeals) allowing refund to the petitioner has become inoperative by virtue of the fact that an appeal by the respondent against that order is pending before the central excise customs and gold control tribunal.2. it is settled law that no order will become inoperative simply on account of pendency of appeal unless its operation is stayed by the higher authority. it is not the case of the respondent that any stay order was obtained from the tribunal against the order of the collector (appeals) and, therefore, that order being final will continue to be operative unless its operation is stayed by the tribunal.3. upon hearing the parties the petition succeeds and is allowed. the respondent is directed to make refund pursuant to the order of the collector (appeals), ghaziabad (annexure-2 to the writ petition) within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent by the petitioner.4. a certified copy of this order will be supplied to the parties on payment within 72 hours.