# SHIV SHANKER D.\L MILLS ETC. ETC v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. November 9; 1979

- **Citation:** [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1170
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980
- **Bench:** V. R. KRJSllNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK, A. D. KosHAL
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shiv-shanker-d-l-mills-etc-etc-v-state-of-haryana-ors-etc-november-9-1979-7873
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitution of India 1950, Artich; 226-1/igh Court /ioldin:_.: levy UfegalConscqe11tial liability to ref u11d-'A ltcrnative rcn1edj' arailable-Jurisdiction
under-Whether barred.
In Kewal K1ishan Puri v. State uf Punjab and others [1979J 3 S.C.R. page
1217, this Court struck down payn1ent of marki:t
fees at the inl.'.rcased
rate
of 3 per cent (raised frorn the original 2 per cent) under lfaryana Act No. 22
of 1977. A consequential liability was therefore ca.st on the market committees
to refund the excess amounts collected.
The appellants and the petitioners who had paid under n1istake the excess
sums demanded a direction to the effect that these amounts be refunded.
On the que~tion of refund of the, execs.'i arnounts collected by the J}]arkct
committees.
HELD : 1. Where public botiies under colour of public
laws
recover
people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies,
the·
dhan11a of tflt;;
situation admits of no equivocation.
There is no hnv of limitation especially
for public bodies on the virtue of returning what \\'O<; wrongly recovered to
\vhom it
bidongs,
In
our jurisprud<;>nce it is not palatable to
turn down
the prayer for high prerogative writs on the negative plea of alternative remedy,
since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi rc11u:diu1n.
(1172 G·H]
2. In our jurisdktion, social justice is a pervasive preeience and save in
.speciGl situation it is fair to be guided by the strategy of equity by asking
those \Vho claim the scr\•ices of the ju<licial process to en1b1 a(.;c the basic rules
of distributive justice, while n1oul<ling the relief by consenting to restore little
sums taken in little transactions from litt\e persons to whon1 they belong.
[1173 El
3. Article 226 grants an cxtraordinr:iry re1ncdy which i-; essentially discrc·
tionary, nlthough found~d on legal injury.
It is perfectly open for the court
exercising this fl~xible power to pass such orders as public interc_,, dictotes und
equity projecLi;;. [1174 D]
In the instant case although the refund of cxce:-.s collections might be
legally due to the traders, many of the traders had themselves recovered the
excess percentage from the next purchasers. To the extent the traders bad paid
out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had in
turn collected from elsewhere.
It would be he.rd to leave every agriculturist
to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible sums which
cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. [1173 F-H]
' I
I
SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Tyer, J.) 1171
4. 111 Newabgani Sugar Mills v. Union of India and others [1976] 1 SCR
A
.:803 this Cou11 in a similar situation devised a new prucedure to deal \vith a
new situation \vhere equity demanded redistribution but procedur.al expensi,'eness and cu111bcrson1ent:ss effectively tfiwarted legal actions.
[1173 li·ll74 Al
5. Situations without precedent demand remedies v1ithout preced1~nt. [1174 B]
[The Court devised a scheme uf refund by the market committees and
redistribution of the small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collections had been made.] [1174 CJ
Ovrr. APPELLATE luRISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3220-3234
of 1979.
B
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
11-7-79, 23-8-79, 8-8-79, 15-10-79, 30-7-79, 18-9-79,
22-10-79, c
18-10-79, 29-10-79, 16-10-79, and 12-10-79 of the Punjab
and
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Peittions Nos. 2306, 2966, 2737.
3617, 2588, 3277, 3749, 3697, 3820, 3625, 3624 and 315-317/79
respectively.
AND
D
Writ Petitions No. 892, 918, 921, 979-980, 1057-1058, 1095,
1234, 1273, 1051, 997, 940 and 981/79.
(Under ArJiclc 32 of the Constitution)
Dr. Y. S. Chitale (CA 3220/79), R. A. Gupta, Adarsh Goel and
S. K. Goel, for the Appellant in CA 3220/79 and 3222/79 for the
E
Petitioner in W.P. 892, 918 and 921/79.
B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda for the Appellant in CA 3221/
79, 3224-3226/79.
A nil B. Dewan, Adarsh Goel, S. K. Goel, and R. A. Gupta for
1he

## Text

1170
A
SHIV SHANKER D.\L MILLS ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
November 9; 1979
B
[V. R. KRJSllNA IYER, R. s. PATHAK AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Constitution of India 1950, Artich; 226-1/igh Court /ioldin:_.: levy UfegalConscqe11tial liability to ref u11d-'A ltcrnative rcn1edj' arailable-Jurisdiction
under-Whether barred.
In Kewal K1ishan Puri v. State uf Punjab and others [1979J 3 S.C.R. page
1217, this Court struck down payn1ent of marki:t
fees at the inl.'.rcased
rate
of 3 per cent (raised frorn the original 2 per cent) under lfaryana Act No. 22
of 1977. A consequential liability was therefore ca.st on the market committees
to refund the excess amounts collected.
The appellants and the petitioners who had paid under n1istake the excess
sums demanded a direction to the effect that these amounts be refunded.
On the que~tion of refund of the, execs.'i arnounts collected by the J}]arkct
committees.
HELD : 1. Where public botiies under colour of public
laws
recover
people's money, later discovered to be erroneous levies,
the·
dhan11a of tflt;;
situation admits of no equivocation.
There is no hnv of limitation especially
for public bodies on the virtue of returning what \\'O<; wrongly recovered to
\vhom it
bidongs,
In
our jurisprud<;>nce it is not palatable to
turn down
the prayer for high prerogative writs on the negative plea of alternative remedy,
since the root principle of law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi rc11u:diu1n.
(1172 G·H]
2. In our jurisdktion, social justice is a pervasive preeience and save in
.speciGl situation it is fair to be guided by the strategy of equity by asking
those \Vho claim the scr\•ices of the ju<licial process to en1b1 a(.;c the basic rules
of distributive justice, while n1oul<ling the relief by consenting to restore little
sums taken in little transactions from litt\e persons to whon1 they belong.
[1173 El
3. Article 226 grants an cxtraordinr:iry re1ncdy which i-; essentially discrc·
tionary, nlthough found~d on legal injury.
It is perfectly open for the court
exercising this fl~xible power to pass such orders as public interc_,, dictotes und
equity projecLi;;. [1174 D]
In the instant case although the refund of cxce:-.s collections might be
legally due to the traders, many of the traders had themselves recovered the
excess percentage from the next purchasers. To the extent the traders bad paid
out of their own, they were entitled to keep them, but not where they had in
turn collected from elsewhere.
It would be he.rd to leave every agriculturist
to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible sums which
cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. [1173 F-H]
' I
I
SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Tyer, J.) 1171
4. 111 Newabgani Sugar Mills v. Union of India and others [1976] 1 SCR
A
.:803 this Cou11 in a similar situation devised a new prucedure to deal \vith a
new situation \vhere equity demanded redistribution but procedur.al expensi,'eness and cu111bcrson1ent:ss effectively tfiwarted legal actions.
[1173 li·ll74 Al
5. Situations without precedent demand remedies v1ithout preced1~nt. [1174 B]
[The Court devised a scheme uf refund by the market committees and
redistribution of the small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collections had been made.] [1174 CJ
Ovrr. APPELLATE luRISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3220-3234
of 1979.
B
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
11-7-79, 23-8-79, 8-8-79, 15-10-79, 30-7-79, 18-9-79,
22-10-79, c
18-10-79, 29-10-79, 16-10-79, and 12-10-79 of the Punjab
and
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Peittions Nos. 2306, 2966, 2737.
3617, 2588, 3277, 3749, 3697, 3820, 3625, 3624 and 315-317/79
respectively.
AND
D
Writ Petitions No. 892, 918, 921, 979-980, 1057-1058, 1095,
1234, 1273, 1051, 997, 940 and 981/79.
(Under ArJiclc 32 of the Constitution)
Dr. Y. S. Chitale (CA 3220/79), R. A. Gupta, Adarsh Goel and
S. K. Goel, for the Appellant in CA 3220/79 and 3222/79 for the
E
Petitioner in W.P. 892, 918 and 921/79.
B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda for the Appellant in CA 3221/
79, 3224-3226/79.
A nil B. Dewan, Adarsh Goel, S. K. Goel, and R. A. Gupta for
1he Appellant in CA 3323/79.
F
Adarslz K. Goel, S. K. Go~! and R. A. Gupta for the Appellants
in CA 3222/79, for the Petitioner in WP 892/79, 918/79, 921/79.
A. K. Goel and S. K. Goel for the Petitioner in WP 979 /79.
B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda for the Petitioner ~n WP 980/79.
Sarwa Mitter, Ved Prakash Gael and B. S. Mali// for the
Petitioner.
-~· P .. Iha, Cyan Chand D!mrt'wala and Sanjee Walia fc.r
the
Pel!t10ner m WP 1057-58/79.
M. P. Iha and P. C. Khungu for the Petitioner in W.P. 1095/79.
·.
N. D. Garg and T. L. Garg for the Petitioner in WP 123•1/79
21-743 SCI/79
.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I I 72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1980] 1 S.C.R.
R. K. Garg (WP 892/79 and CA 3220/79) Gian Singh
and
S. C. Patel for the Respondents 2-3 in CAs. 3220/79, 3221, 3222,
3223, 3224 and for the Respondent in WP 892/79, 921, 979, 981,.
1057-58/79, 1273, 997 and for Respondent in CA 3230, 3225/79.
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Respondent in WP 918/
79 and 980/79, 1095 and 1234/79.
Adarsh Goel and Gyan Sudha Misra for the Petitioner in
WP
1273/79.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. This big bunch of writ petitions shows
how
litigation has a habit of proliferation in onr proccssual system since
cases are considered in isolation, not in th~ir comprehensive implications and docket management is an art awaiting its Indian
dawn.
The facts, being admitted, obviate debate.
All these appellants and
writ petitioners had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3 per cent
(raised from the original 2 per cent) under Haryana Act No. 32
of 1977.
Many dealers challenged the levies as
unconstitutional,
and this Court, in a series of appeals (C.A. Nos.
1083
of 1977
etc.)(') rule<l that the ~xcess of 1 per cent over the original rate of
2 per cent was ultra vires.
This cast a· consequential liability on the
market committees to refund the illegal portion.
They were not so
ordered probably because they could not straightway be quantified.
The petitioners who
had, under mistake,
paid large sums which,
after the decision of this Conrt holding the levy illegal, have become
refundable, demand a direction to that effect to the market
committees concerned.
The~e cannot be any dispute about the obligation or the amounts since the market committees have
accounts of
coll~ctions and are willing lo disgorge the excess sums. Indeed, if
they file suits within the
limitation
period,
decrees must
surely
follow.
What the period of limitation is and whether Art. 226 will
apply arc moot as is evident from the High Court's judgment, but we
am not called upon to pronounce on either point in the view we take.
Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's
moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the
situation admits of no equivocation.
There is no law of !imitation.
espccialiy for public bodies, on the virtue of returning
what
was
wrongly recovered lo whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to
our
jurisprudence to tum down the prayer for high prerogative writs, on
the negative plea of 'alternative remedy', since the root principle of
(I) Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1217.
SHIV SHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 1173
---··
law married to justice, is ubi jus ibi remedium.
Long a,go Dicey
wrote:
"The saw ubi jus ibi remedium, becomes from this Point
of view something more important than a mere tautological
proposition.
In its bearing upon constitutional
law,
it
means that the Englishmen whose labours gradually formed the complicated set of laws and institutions which
we
call the Constitution, fixed
their minds far more
intently
on providing remedies for the enforcement of
particular
rights or for averting definite wrongs, than upon any declarations of the Rights of Man or Englishmen .... The Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the
separate States are embodied in written or printed docu·
mcnts, and contain declaration of rights.
But the statesmen of America have shown an unrivalled skill in providing means for giving legal security to the rights declared by
American Constitutions.
The rule o[ law is as marked a
foatun of the United States as of England."
Another point.
In our jurisdiction, social justice is a pervasive
presence; and so, save in special situations it is fair to be guided by
tho strategy of equity by asking those who claim the service of the
judicial process to embrace the basic rule of
distribulive
justice,
while moulding the relief, by consenting to restore little sums, taken
in little transactions, from )ittlc persons, to whom they belong.
When we reminded counsel 011 both sides of these guidelines of
Good· Samaritan jurisprudence and desired consensual disposal of
these cases, we gratifyingly found wdcome echo and we appreciatively record this stance.
The counsel for the market committees pointed out that although
refund of excess collections might be legally
due
to the
traders
many of the traders had themselves recovered this excess percentage
from the next purchasers.
So much so, these tiny tittles if they arc
to return to the original payers, should revert to the next purchasers
themselves.
The traders who are the petitioners have no mor.c right
to keep such small sums than the market committees themselves. Tu
th;; extent to which the traders had paid out o[ their own, of rnursc.
they were en!itled to keep them, but not where they had, in tum.
col'.ected from elsewhere.
It would be hard to leave every a:;ricultunst to file a suit or other legal proceeding for recovery of negligible
sums which cumulatively amount to colossal amounts. Many a little
makes a mickle.
A similar situation arose in Newabganj Sugar
A-
.,
B
c
D
E
F
G •
H
.A
'B
·C
1I 74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
Mill.i case(') where this Court devised a new procedure to deal with
a new situation where equity demanded redistribution but procedmal
expensiveness and cumbersomeness effectively
thwarted such legal
actions by the "small" many. Situations without precedent demand
remedies without precedent.
We indicated to counsel that the procedure
adopkd
in
the
Newabganj Sugar Mills case (supra) may usefully be adapted to the
present case.
In broad principle, counsel did agree, and we
proceed Ofl that footing, that we devise a scheme of refund by the
market committees and redistribution, to the extent indicated above,
of small amounts to those from whom unwarranted collections had
been made, may be unwittingly, by the traders who are appellants
or petitioners.
Article 226 grants an extra-ordinary remedy which is essentially
discretionary, although founded on legal injury.
It is perfectly open
for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as
public interest dictates and equity projects.
"Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go
much
further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of
the public interest than they are accustomed to go where
only private
in!erests
are
involved.
Accordingly,
the
granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent
upon considerations as of public interest. ... "(')
Keeping in mind these guidelines we make the following directions:
I. Subject to the directions given below, all the sums collected
'F
by the \Wious market committees who are respondents
in
these
various writ petitions or appeals shall be liable to be paid into the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana within one week of intimation
by the Registrar of the amount so liable to be paid into the court .
. IT. A stateme'1t of the amounts collected in excess (1 % ) shall be
·f;
put into this court by the dealers with copies to the various market
committees aforesaid within 10 days from today, and if there is any
difference between the parties it shall be brought to the notice of this
Court in the shape of miscellaneous petitions.
On final orders, 'if any,
passed thereon by this Court, thos() amounts, as so determined, shall
be treated as final.
H
(1) [l,76] 1 S.C.R. R03.
(2) 21 Am. Jur. 2Jd Equity p. 626.
\
SH!VSHANKER DAL MILLS v. HARYANA (Krishna Iyer, J.) I I 7 5
III. The Registrar of the High Court shall isime public
notice
and otherwise give due publicity to the fact that dealers who
have
not passed on the liabilities to others and others who have contributed to or paid the excess one per cent cover\'d by these writ petitions
and appeals may make claims for such sums as are due to them from
him within one month or such other period as
he may fix. The
Registrar shall scrutinise such claims and ascertain the
sums
so
proved.
He will thereupon demand of all the market committees
concerned payment into the Registry of such sums in regard to which
proo[ of claims have been made.
On such intimation, the market
committees shall pay into the Registry the amounts so demanded by
the Registrar within one week
of
such intimation.
The amount
shall be paid together with interest at 10 per cent per annum from
today upto the date of deposit with the Registrar.
IV. It shall be open to the Registrar to make such
periodical
claims on appropriate proof by claimants on the lines slatd above.
V. He will devise the mechanics of processing the claims as best
as he may and, in the event of dispute, may refer to the High CO'Dr~
for its decision of such disputes, if he thinks it
necessa"··
Otherwise, he may dispose of the objections finally.
VI. If any further directions regarding the mechanics of the claim
of refund or otherwise are found necessary from this
Court, the
High Court will report about such matter to this Court and orders
made thereon will bind the parties.
VII. If parties eligible for repayment of amounts do not claim
within one year from today the Registrar will not
entertain
any
further claims.
It will be open to such parties to pursue their remedies for recovery for any sums that may be due to th~m.
VIII. Each State Marketing Board will deposit within 10
days
frnm today a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the Registrar for ~he preliminary expenses of publicity and other incidentals for the implementation of the directions given above.
Any unexpended amount, at
the end of one year, will be repaid to the respective State Marketing
Board.
IX. We further direct that the unclaimed amounts, if any, shall
be permitted to be used by the respective Marketing Committee~ for
the purposes falling within the statute as interpreted by this Court in
ilie CA No. 1083/77.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"
1176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] l S.C.11..
· A
These appeals and writ petitions are disposed of on the above
lines, the winners being both the sides before us, the invisible small
consumers and above all, justice, equity and gocd conscience to the
inarticulate community, which is the functional triumph of law in
action within hailing distance of each other.
B
We wind up with a word of satisfaction that each on~ has had
his meed and in recognition thereof we direct the parties to bear
their own costs.
N.V.K.