Writ refund of illegally seized cash and interest for wrongful retention upheld where illegality was already established.

A writ court may grant refund of cash illegally seized where the seizure has already been declared unlawful and no appeal or substantive defence remains. In that situation, the availability of a civil suit does not bar relief in writ jurisdiction, because the only consequential remedy is return of the money. The text also states that reasonable interest may be awarded on wrongfully retained amounts as compensation for unlawful detention, even without an express statutory provision. On these facts, the refund and interest directions were upheld and the authorities were bound to return the seized cash with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition was maintainable for refund of money seized by the excise authorities after the seizure had been held illegal; (ii) whether interest was payable on the refunded amount.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable for refund of money seized by the excise authorities after the seizure had been held illegal.

Analysis: The seizure of the cash had already been declared illegal, and no appeal had been brought against that finding. In such circumstances, the only consequential relief was return of the money. The rule against entertaining a writ solely for refund of money does not apply rigidly where the legal wrong is already established and no real defence survives. The availability of a civil suit did not justify denying relief in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the objection based on alternative remedy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the refunded amount.

Analysis: Once the amount was found to have been unlawfully retained, the authorities could not continue to withhold it without consequence. Where money legally due is detained without authority, payment of reasonable interest is justified as compensation for the wrongful retention. The absence of a specific statutory provision was not decisive on these facts.

Conclusion: Interest was payable on the refunded amount, and the award of interest was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund and interest directions failed, and the authorities were bound to return the seized cash with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may grant refund of money illegally seized when the illegality is already established and no substantive defence remains, and it may also award reasonable interest for wrongful retention of the amount.

---