Court orders refund of excess market fees collected, emphasizing obligation to return funds. Procedure outlined for efficient processing.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellants and writ petitioners, directing the market committees to refund the excess market fees collected under Haryana Act No. 32 of 1977. Emphasizing the obligation to return wrongly collected funds without any limitation period hindrance, the Court proposed a scheme for refund and redistribution of excess amounts to ensure justice for all parties involved. The Court exercised its discretionary powers under Article 226 to provide equitable relief and outlined a procedure for efficient processing of claims and payments, ultimately disposing of the appeals and writ petitions with directions for refund and redistribution.

---

---

Issues involved: Refund of excess market fees paid u/s Haryana Act No. 32 of 1977, applicability of limitation period and Art. 226, redistribution of amounts collected in excess, discretionary powers u/s Article 226, equitable relief, procedure for refund and redistribution.

Refund of excess market fees: The appellants and writ petitioners had paid market fees at an increased rate of 3 per cent under Haryana Act No. 32 of 1977, which was later ruled as ultra vires by the Court. The market committees were found liable to refund the illegal portion of the fees collected. The petitioners demanded a direction for refund, supported by the fact that the market committees had accounts of collections and were willing to disgorge the excess sums. The Court emphasized the obligation to return wrongly recovered moneys, especially for public bodies, without any limitation period hindrance.

Applicability of limitation period and Art. 226: The Court refrained from pronouncing on the period of limitation or the application of Art. 226, as the High Court's judgment did not necessitate a ruling on these points. The principle of ubi jus ibi remedium was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of providing remedies for enforcing rights and averting wrongs, especially in cases involving public bodies and erroneous levies.

Redistribution of excess amounts: The Court considered the issue of traders having recovered excess percentages from next purchasers and proposed a scheme for refund by the market committees and redistribution of small amounts to the original payers. Drawing on the Newabganj Sugar Mills case, the Court suggested adapting a similar procedure to deal with the situation, ensuring that unwarranted collections are returned to the rightful recipients.

Discretionary powers u/s Article 226: Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy founded on legal injury, allowing the Court to pass orders based on public interest and equity. The Court exercised its flexible power to make directions for the refund and redistribution of excess amounts collected by the market committees, emphasizing the importance of considering public interest in such matters.

Equitable relief and procedure for refund: The Court directed all sums collected in excess to be paid into the High Court, with a statement of excess amounts to be submitted by dealers within a specified period. A mechanism for claims and payments was outlined, with the Registrar overseeing the process and ensuring timely refunds with interest. The Court stressed the need for equitable relief and efficient processing of claims to ensure justice for all parties involved.

Conclusion: The appeals and writ petitions were disposed of with directions for refund and redistribution, aiming to benefit both the traders and consumers. The Court emphasized the importance of justice, equity, and good conscience in resolving the issue, with parties instructed to bear their own costs.

---