Refund of redemption fine cannot be denied where the petitioners' case matches Supreme Court-settled facts despite no-precedent wording.

Where the petitioners stood on the same factual footing as the matters already decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that relief could not be denied merely because the Supreme Court had said its order was not to be treated as a precedent. The common confiscation order and redemption fine having already been set aside in the connected matters, the petitioners were entitled to refund of the redemption fine paid under the impugned order, with interest at 12% per annum if the amount was not refunded within one month.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the redemption fine paid under the impugned confiscation order, notwithstanding the observation that the Supreme Court order was not to be treated as a precedent.

Analysis: The facts governing the petitioners were identical to those considered by the Supreme Court in the connected matters. The common order of confiscation and redemption fine had already been set aside by the Supreme Court, and the Court held that the statement that the order was not to be treated as a precedent did not bar relief where the petitioners' case stood on the same factual footing.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to refund of Rs. 41,00,000 paid towards redemption fine, with interest at 12% per annum if not refunded within one month.

---