https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295606 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable where refund of a licence fee arose from State action with a public law flavour and the monetary claim was consequential, with no oral evidence required. In the absence of any express forfeiture clause, the State could not retain the licence fee or refuse refund, particularly when similarly placed bidders had been allowed to withdraw and no loss or injury was shown. Interest on the refunded amount was declined because entitlement depended on a fuller examination of the parties' conduct. The refusal to refund was quashed and the principal amount ordered to be recovered. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 19:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295606 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable where refund of a licence fee arose from State action with a public law flavour and the monetary claim was consequential, with no oral evidence required. In the absence of any express forfeiture clause, the State could not retain the licence fee or refuse refund, particularly when similarly placed bidders had been allowed to withdraw and no loss or injury was shown. Interest on the refunded amount was declined because entitlement depended on a fuller examination of the parties' conduct. The refusal to refund was quashed and the principal amount ordered to be recovered. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295606