Writ refund and restitution claims fail where permit payments involve disputed facts, voluntary payment, and alternative civil remedies.

Refund claims arising from permit-based commercial payments were held unsuitable for writ relief where the controversy turned on disputed facts, voluntary payment, delay, allocation of scheme expenses, and the existence of alternative civil remedies. The Court treated mandamus under Article 226 as inappropriate because the claim did not resemble recovery of an unlawful tax and required factual enquiry into the permit arrangement. It also held that restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act was not clearly made out, since the pleadings showed only a bare assertion of mistake and the State disputed both mistake and coercion. The parties were left to pursue civil remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of the administrative surcharge collected under the rice export permit scheme could be ordered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the payments were recoverable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on the footing of mistake of law or coercion.

Issue (i): Whether refund of the administrative surcharge collected under the rice export permit scheme could be ordered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the claims did not stand on the same footing as recovery of an illegal tax. The payments were made in connection with permits obtained by the appellants, and the respondent State asserted that the surcharge formed part of the terms on which the export facility was granted and was connected with the expenses of administration and supervision of the scheme. The writ petitions also raised issues of delay, insufficiency of particulars, voluntary payment, and disputed facts, including the allocation of expenses and the nature of the arrangements between the parties. In such circumstances, mandamus was considered inappropriate, especially where the petitioners had an alternative civil remedy and the controversy involved triable factual issues.

Conclusion: Refund was not warranted in writ jurisdiction, and the refusal to grant mandamus was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the payments were recoverable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on the footing of mistake of law or coercion.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the case from claims for repayment of money collected without authority as a tax. It observed that Section 72 applies where money is paid by mistake or under coercion, but the present payments were asserted by the State to be voluntary payments made as part of the permit arrangement. The pleadings disclosed only a bare assertion of mistake, while the State disputed both the existence of mistake and the circumstances in which the payments were made. The Court therefore treated the matter as involving disputed questions of fact and possible contractual obligations rather than a clear case of money paid by mistake of law.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish a clear right to restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not suitable for writ relief, and the appellants were left to pursue civil remedies if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where payment is made in connection with permit-based commercial arrangements and the claim for refund turns on disputed questions of voluntary payment, mistake, contractual terms, and factual allocation of expenses, writ relief under Article 226 is ordinarily inappropriate and the parties should be relegated to a civil remedy.

---