Refund compliance directions: fresh application ordered and refund to be processed expeditiously after delay caused by wrong office routing.

Directions were issued to secure compliance with the earlier refund order after the petitioner alleged non-disbursal of the refund amount. The respondent stated that the refund application had been sent to the wrong ward officer, which caused the delay. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh refund application within one week and required the refund to be processed expeditiously thereafter. The concerned official was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether directions were required to secure compliance with the earlier order directing refund with statutory interest, in view of the alleged non-disbursal of the refund amount.

Analysis: The application was founded on the assertion that the refund ordered earlier had not been released. The respondent explained that the application had been sent to the wrong ward officer, causing delay. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh refund application within one week and required the refund to be processed expeditiously thereafter. The matter was listed for the next date of hearing, and the concerned official was directed to remain present.

Outcome: Interim directions issued for filing of a fresh refund application and for expeditious processing of the refund.

---