Atma Steels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....unless stay is obtained against the order of the appellate authority which is in favour of the assessee.;misc. 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.....order1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the case of the petitioner is that when refund applications were rejected, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority and then the appeal was accepted and refund was directed. aggrieved by that order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal, new delhi. an application for stay was made by the revenue before the appellate tribunal, which was rejected.3. it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as a result of the stay application having been rejected, the petitioner is entitled to get refund. it is urged that the application for refund made after the order rejecting the stay application by the tribunal, is still pending.4. upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing the assistant collector, central excise, division-iii, ghaziabad, to decide the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before respondent no. 2 by the petitioner.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The case of the petitioner is that when refund applications were rejected, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority and then the appeal was accepted and refund was directed. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. An application for stay was made by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as a result of the stay application having been rejected, the petitioner is entitled to get refund. It is urged that the application for refund made after the order rejecting the stay application by the Tribunal, is still pending.

4. Upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad, to decide the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 2 by the petitioner.