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

Excerpt:
held: refund cannot be withheld by the deptt. 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 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 state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. 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.