Writ petition which is simplicitor for a money claim is not maintainable

Bombay Distributors Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

Bombay High Court held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is simplicitor for a money claim is not maintainable. Accordingly, present writ relating to recovery of excess charges paid towards excise supervisory staff is also not maintainable.

Facts- The petition is espoused on the grounds that Respondents ought to have recovered the supervision charges or cost in accordance with the circulars dated 19 November, 1981 and 11 March, 1993, 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.

Conclusion- In Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. vs. Anupama Patnaik, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in allowing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was simplicitor claim for money and when there were disputed questions of fact as in the present case. Accordingly, held that the present petition, which is simplicitor for a money claim, would not be maintainable.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.