Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4849 OF 2014

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) 14843 OF 2012)

STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.                        ………APPELLANTS VS.

SUSRITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.             ……RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

 Leave granted.  

2.  This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning  

the  correctness  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  final  

Order  dated  2.2.2012  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Guwahati, Assam, in M.C. No. 5 of 2012 in Writ Appeal

Page 2

Sl. No.168339 of 2011, urging various facts and legal  

contentions in justification of their claim.  

3.  Necessary  relevant  facts  are  stated  hereunder  to  

appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find  

out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief  

as prayed in this appeal.

4.  The  Government  of  Assam  issued  instructions  in  

respect of alienation of tea garden land from time to  

time,  particularly,  letter  no.  RSS  573/94/25  dated  

26.3.2001  of  the  Government  of  Assam,  Revenue  

(Settlement) Department requiring prior approval of the  

Government.  

5. On 30.10.2006, following the dissolution of Cachar  

Tea  Farming  and  Industrial  Cooperative  Society,  the  

Cachar  Ex- Officio liquidator, Cachar Tea Farming and  

Industrial  Cooperaive  Society  Ltd,  (in  short  the  

‘Liquidator’), issued a notice inviting tenders for the  

sale  of  Chincoorie  Tea  Estate  owned  by  Cachar  Tea  

2

Page 3

Farming  and  Industrial  Cooperative  Society  Ltd.  The  

concerned tea estate measured 9951 bighas.  

6. As on 5.1.2007, no tender had been cast in response  

to the tender notice issued. Therefore, a fresh tender  

notice  dated  5.1.2007,  was  issued  by  the  liquidator  

with minor modifications made on the previous tender  

notice.  The  land  mentioned  in  the  modified  notice  

admeasured 9000 bighas. The last date for submission of  

tenders  was  fixed  at  29.1.2007  which  was  further  

extended to 26.2.2007 upto 2 p.m. by another modified  

tender notice dated 28.1.2007.  

7. It is pertinent to note that the tender of the sale  

of the concerned land was floated without the prior  

approval of the government as required by instructions  

issued in respect of alienation of tea garden land from  

time to time, particularly, letter no. RSS 573/94/25  

dated  26.3.2001  of  the  Government  of  Assam  Revenue  

(Settlement)  Department.  The  other  codal  formalities  

for tender process were not followed either.

3

Page 4

8. On 26.2.2007, two tender bids were received. The  

respondent herein made a bid for Rs.1.11 crore. Another  

party, M/s Luxmi Township made a bid for Rs.1.05 crore.  

However, since the respondent had submitted his tender  

document by hand at 3:45 p.m., the same was objected by  

the  other  contender.  The  respondent  was  still  

considered the only valid bidder.

9.  The  Liquidator  subsequently,  vide  Order  dated  

21.4.2007,  cancelled  the  tender  process  by  observing  

that  the  price  quoted  by  the  parties  for  the  9000  

bighas of land is not at all justifiable. Further, M/s  

Luxmi Township Pvt. Ltd. had intimated that the entire  

stamp duty for the transfer of land, in case of a valid  

sale, has to be borne by the Ex- Officio Liquidator of  

CTFICS Ltd. The bid value is based on this condition  

which the liquidator did not agree.

10. The respondent thereafter, filed a Writ Petition  

(C)No. 1928/2007 before the Guwahati High Court  after  

the tender process had been cancelled vide Order dated  

21.4.2007. In the Writ Petition, the respondent sought  

4

Page 5

directions  for  the  Official  respondents  therein  to  

issue final Order of award in favour of the respondent  

herein.  The  respondent  further  sought  restrain  order  

from cancelling the tender process and initiation of  

fresh tender process. The High Court, vide Order dated  

27.4.2007, restrained the Official respondents therein  

from initiating fresh process for the disposal of the  

land  involved.  The  Order  further  clarified  that  it  

shall not be a bar to issue Order in favour of the  

respondent herein.  

11. The Liquidator, on 9.5.2007, issued notice in a  

local  daily-  The  Assam  Tribune,  declaring  that  the  

tender  process  had  been  cancelled  vide  Order  dated  

21.4.2007.  The  respondent  thereafter,  filed  another  

Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  2416/2007  before  the  Guwahati  

High  Court  impugning  the  notice  dated  9.5.2007.  The  

High Court, vide Order dated 23.5.2007, issued notice  

and directed that the notice dated 9.5.2007 shall not  

be given effect till the returnable date.  

5

Page 6

12.  The  Respondent  next  filed  a  Writ  Petition  (C)  

No. 2971/2007 challenging the cancellation Order by the  

liquidator dated 21.4.2007. In the meantime, the Joint  

Registrar  of  the  Co-operative  Societies  forwarded  a  

report to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies  

by issuing letter to him.  

13. The Deputy Registrar who had cancelled the sale of  

the  tea  garden  was  transferred  by  that  time.  His  

successor  vide  letter  dated  2.7.2009,  sought  

permission/approval  of  the  Registrar  of  the  

Co-operative  Societies  to  dispose  of  the  land  in  

question  in  favour  of  the  respondent  herein  in  the  

light of the Order of the High Court dated 27.4.2007 in  

W.P. (c) No. 1928/ 2007.

14.  Thereafter,  vide  Order  dated  23.7.2009,  the  

Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, permitted the  

Liquidator  to  dispose  of  the  property  involved  in  

favour of the respondent herein.  

6

Page 7

15. The Deputy Registrar issued an award letter dated  

27.8.2009 and thereafter, signed the agreement for sale  

of the tea garden land on 2.9.2009 and sent a draft  

copy of the Deed of Agreement for the sale of the land  

in question. The respondent was required to make an  

initial deposition of 25% of the total bid initially  

within a week of issuance thereof, as per the terms  

laid  in  Clause  3  of  the  Deed  of  Agreement.  The  

remaining  75%  of  the  total  consideration  amount  was  

required to be paid by the respondent at the time of  

execution of the sale deed, subject however, to the  

withdrawal of W.P. (C) No. 1928/2007 by the respondent.  

The Writ Petition was closed subsequently since it was  

not pursued.

16.  The  sub-Registrar  (Registration),  Silchar  was  

approached  by  the  liquidator  on  9.12.2009  for  

registration of the sale deed. The sub-Registrar asked  

the liquidator to produce permission/approval from the  

Revenue Department for registration of the sale deed.  

The liquidator on 10.12.2009, wrote to the Registrar of  

7

Page 8

the Co-operative Societies seeking instruction on the  

same.  The  Liquidator  however,  could  not  produce  the  

government permission for execution of the sale deed in  

respect of the land in question. Therefore, the sale  

deed could not be executed in favour of the respondent.  

Therefore, vide Communication dated 20.1.2010 from the  

Secretary,  Co-operation  Department  to  the  Deputy  

Commissioner, Cachar, he was directed to refrain from  

registering the sale deed in respect of the property in  

question  without  the  clearance  from  the  Co-operation  

Department.  

17. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed another  

Writ Petition (C) No. 4147/2010 before the High Court  

seeking a direction to the appellant for execution of  

the  sale  deed  in  its  favour  and  also  to  quash  the  

communication dated 20.1.2010 of the Secretary of the  

Co-operation  Department  which  gave  direction  to  the  

Deputy  Commissioner,  Cachar,  to  refrain  him  from  

registering the sale deed without the clearance of the  

Co-operation Department.  

8

Page 9

18.  The  High  Court  held  that  since  the  amount  has  

already been paid by the respondent to the Department,  

there is no question of taking further approval from  

the government. Therefore, the High Court directed the  

Deputy  Registrar  of  the  Co-operative  Societies  to  

follow up the execution of the sale deed in respect of  

the property and its registration.  

19.  The  said  order  was  forwarded  to  the  higher  

authority.  However,  the  sale  deed  did  not  get  

registered  subsequently  which  was  followed  by  a  

Contempt Case No. 443/2010 initiated by the respondent.  

20. The appellants filed a Review Petition No. 112/  

2010 before the High Court seeking review of its Order  

dated 6.8.2010 passed in W.P. (c) No. 4147/2010. In the  

meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar vide letter  

dated 13.10.2010 to Secretary, Revenue, sought approval  

of the government for alienation of the garden land. In  

response  to  the  letter  mentioned  above,  the  Deputy  

Secretary,  Revenue  and  Disaster  Management  wrote  a  

letter  dated  29.11.2010  to  the  Deputy  Secretary,  

9

Page 10

Co-operation Department to submit a report in order to  

accord  approval  for  alienation  of  the  land.  Another  

letter was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar to  

submit  proposal  as  per  Government  land  policy  and  

guidelines for alienation of garden land.  

21.  The  Review  Petition  No.  112/2010  filed  by  the  

appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 2.2.2011.  

On 29.6.2011, the letter dated 24.5.2011 was put up  

before the Principal Secretary. The Principal Secretary  

in  turn,  forwarded  the  proposal  to  the  Minister,  

Revenue  and  Disaster  Management  Department  for  

obtaining necessary approval from the Chief Minister of  

Assam  State  on  the  condition  that  the  land  under  

transfer  will  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  of  tea  

cultivation and no bona fide worker or the erstwhile  

Co-operative  Society  should  be  adversely  affected  by  

the transfer of ownership.   

22. The Chief Minister of the State observed that there  

are various discrepancies in the proposal forwarded to  

1

Page 11

him and therefore, directed the Revenue Department to  

examine  the  matter  and  to  consult  the  Legal  

Remembrancer  for  further  course  of  action  in  case  

discrepancies  are  found.  The  Legal  Remambrancer  

observed that since loss of huge amount of public money  

to  the  tune  of  several  crores  is  involved  in  the  

matter, the government might prefer an appeal before  

the Division Bench in wider public interest along with  

petition  for  condonation  of  delay.  Accordingly,  an  

appeal was filed by the appellants against the Order  

dated 6.8.2010 passed by the High Court in W.P. (C) No.  

4147/2010.  The  High  Court  however,  vide  Order  dated  

2.2.2012, rejected the application for condonation of  

delay being M.C. No. 5/ 2011 in WA Sl. No. 168339/2011.  

23. The High Court opined that the time lag between  

2.2.2011  and  22.11.2011  has  not  at  all  been  

convincingly  explained  by  the  appellants.  Though  the  

State is in shackle by unavoidable official formalities  

to  streamline  its  decision,  however,  the  explanation  

offered by the appellants towards justification of the  

1

Page 12

delay in filing the appeal is insufficient and it has  

dismissed  the  condonation  of  delay  application  and  

consequently dismissed the writ appeal.  

24.  The  appellants  have  come  in  appeal  before  this  

Court mainly on two grounds:

Firstly,  the  impugned  Order  is  violative  of  the  

principles of natural justice. The appellants in the  

writ proceedings, have not been afforded an opportunity  

to file their affidavits on merits. Also, the Order in  

this  perspective  is  unsafe  to  be  acted  upon  since  

enormous amount of public revenue is involved in the  

matter.

Secondly,  the  appellants  claim  that  the  transaction  

sought to be completed squarely within the realm of a  

contract.  Therefore,  no  direction  in  the  nature  of  

mandamus could have been issued to the appellants as  

the same is not permissible in law, and rendered the  

impugned decision void ab initio.

1

Page 13

25. The impugned Order passed by the High Court stated  

that the appeal brought before it by the appellants has  

been  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  delay.  Though,  

submissions were made by both the parties explaining  

the cause for delay. However, instead of deciding this  

issue on merit which was required in this case as it  

involved  substantial  question  of  law  and  public  

interest, the Court dismissed the case on the ground of  

delay after hearing the submissions of the parties.  

26. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in  

dismissing the appeal of the appellants on the ground  

of  delay  since  this  appeal  requires  to  be  heard  on  

merit. There is no qualm on the fact that there has  

been a delay of 9 months in filing the Review Petition.  

The  appellants  contended  that  the  delay  was  due  to  

unavoidable government procedure involved.  

27. It has been held by this Court in the case of G.  

Ramegowda, Major and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition  

Officer, Bangalore1 that:

1 (1988) 2 SCC 142

1

Page 14

“15. In litigations to which Government is a  party  there  is  yet  another  aspect  which,  perhaps,  cannot  be  ignored.  If  appeals  brought  by Government are  lost  for  such  defaults, no person is individually affected;  but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers  is  public  interest.  The  decisions  of Government are  collective  and  institutional decisions and do not share the  characteristics  of  decisions  of  private  individuals.

 XXX XXX XXX

17.  Therefore,  in  assessing  what,  in  a  particular  case,  constitutes  "sufficient  cause" for purposes of Section 5, it might,  perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude  from  the  considerations  that  go  into  the  judicial  verdict,  these  factors  which  are  peculiar  to  and  characteristic  of  the  functioning  of  the government.  Governmental  decisions are proverbially slow encumbered,  as  they  are,  by  a  considerable  degree  of  procedural red tape in the process of their  making.”

Therefore, regarding the matter of delay in this case,  

we are inclined to observe that the malfunctioning of  

the  State  Government  regarding  the  unpardonable  

lackadaisical attitude towards pursuing matter in the  

court of law cannot be the reason for loss of public  

1

Page 15

property, which involves public money and causes loss  

to the public exchequer. Therefore, we feel that it is  

a  fit  case  to  exercise  our  discretionary  power  to  

condone  the  delay  in  filing  the  writ  appeal  in  the  

interest  of  public  at  large  as  the  High  Court  has  

failed to do so. We therefore, condone the delay in  

filing the Review Petition by the appellants before the  

High Court in the larger interest of public. However,  

this  case  should  not  set  a  precedent  to  justify  

inordinate delays on the part of the State Government  

to file appeals or any other legal proceedings required  

to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed  

in law.

 28.  The  only  legal  issue  before  us  for  our  

consideration  is  therefore,  whether  the  appellants  

lawfully cancelled the tender process in relation to  

the property in question in view of the discrepancies  

crept in the process of transfer of the land in favour  

of the respondent.  

1

Page 16

29. It is an undisputed fact that in the present times  

consideration of Rs.1.11 crores for 9000 bighas of land  

does not reflect the correct market value prevalent at  

the relevant point of time and not even to the civil  

valuer’s report without either factual or legal basis.  

As  per  the  report  of  the  Joint  Registrar  of  Co-

operative  Societies  dated  31.02.2006,  the  updated  

registered value of the concerned tea garden stands at  

Rs.4,24,72,124/- as opined by Sri. M.P. Gindora, Tea  

Consultant and Registered Valuer. This report however,  

carried a qualifier along with it. It is stated in the  

report on the assumption that it is hardly expected  

that  any  party  will  come  forward  to  purchase  an  

existing tea garden with huge encroachment. As per the  

facts put on record, the total area of the estate is  

1247.29  Hectares  out  of  which  70%  is  encroached.  

However, this alone cannot be a ground for the Joint  

Registrar of Co-operative Societies to opine that it  

would not fetch the value of the property as indicated  

by the valuer in the report. Therefore, there was no  

1

Page 17

justification for the appellants to sell the property  

at an extremely low price without any effort of issuing  

eviction  notice  to  the  alleged  encroachers  to  evict  

them by following the due process of law. There will  

not  be  any  impediment  for  the  appellants  to  evict  

trespassers  from  the  land  in  question  without  

considering the above relevant aspects of the case. The  

High  Court  granted  the  relief  in  favour  of  the  

respondent in its writ petition by quashing the order  

of cancelling the tender process by the officer of the  

appellant No. 1 and further directing the appellants to  

execute  the  sale  deed  accepting  the  offer  of  the  

respondent.

30.  Further,  according  to  the  material  placed  on  

record, the land concerned involves significant amount  

of public money. Therefore, its transfer in favour of  

the  respondent  attracts  the  greatest  amount  of  

responsibility  and  caution.  The  competent  valuer  had  

already  determined  the  registered  value  of  land  at  

Rs.4,24,72,124/-. Therefore, it was the responsibility  

1

Page 18

of the concerned authority to ensure all steps which  

should  have  been  undertaken  to  sell  the  land  at  a  

minimum cost of Rs.4,24,72,124/- or above instead of  

its attempt to sell the same at a lower price merely on  

the pretext that no one would come up to purchase the  

land at the valuer’s price or that since the land is an  

encroached land, the lower price is justified cannot be  

accepted.  The  strong  reliance  placed  by  the  learned  

senior counsel, Mr. Mehta on the report of the Joint  

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is the basis for  

the High Court for grant of relief in favour of the  

respondent is wholly untenable in law and therefore,  

the same cannot be accepted by this Court. The High  

Court should have noticed the above relevant aspects of  

the  case  in  passing  the  impugned  order  which  would  

certainly affect the public interest.  

31. With regard to the procedure to be followed while  

selling the property, this Court, in the case of Mahesh  

Chandra v. Regl. Manager, U.P.F.C.2, has held  :-

2 (1993) 2 SCC 279

1

Page 19

“15. …..  Every wide power, the exercise of  which  has  far  reaching  repercussion,  has  inherent  limitation  on  it.  It  should  be  exercised to effectuate the purpose of the  Act.  In  legislations  enacted  for  general  benefit and common good the responsibility is  far graver. It demands purposeful approach.  The  exercise  of  discretion  should  be  objective.  Test  of  reasonableness  is  more  strict. The public functionaries should be  duty conscious rather than power charged. Its  actions and decisions which touch the common  man have to be tested on the touchstone of  fairness and justice. That which is not fair  and  just  is  unreasonable.  And  what  is  unreasonable  is  arbitrary.  An  arbitrary  action is ultra vires. It does not become  bona fide and in good faith merely because no  personal  gain  or  benefit  to  the  person  exercising discretion should be established.  An action is mala fide if it is contrary to  the purpose for which it was authorised to be  exercised. Dishonesty in discharge of duty  vitiates the action without anything more. An  action is bad even without proof of motive of  dishonesty, if the authority is found to have  acted contrary to reason.……..

16.  ……It  saddles  the  Corporation  or  the  officer  concerned  with  inbuilt  duties,  responsibilities and obligations towards the  debtor  in  dealing  with  the  property  and  entails  him  to  act  as  a  prudent  and  reasonable man standing in the shoes of the  owner.  According  to  Prof.  Issac,  a  noted  author on Trusts, trusteeship has become a  readily available tool for everyday purpose  of  organisation  financing,  risk  shifting,  credit  operations,  settling  disputes  and  liquidation  of  business  affairs.  Maitland,  

1

Page 20

the other renowned writer on Equity, observed  that  one  of  the  exploits  of  equity;  the  largest  and  the  most  important,  is  the  innovation  and  development  of  the  trust.  Thus, trust has been and is being applied for  all  purposes  mentioned  by  Prof.  Issac  and  many others as device to accomplish different  purposes. Trusteeship is an institution of  elasticity and generality. The broad base of  the  concept  of  property  or  its  management  vested in one person and obligation imposed  for its enjoyment by others is accepted in  Hindu  jurisprudence.  Therefore,  when  the  property of the debtor stands transferred to  the Corporation for management or possession  thereof  which  includes  right  to  sell  or  further mortgage etc., the Corporation or its  officers or employees stands in the shoes of  the debtor as trustee and the property caste  que trust. In N. Swyanarayan Iyer's Indian  Trust Act, Third Edition, 1987 at page 275 in  Section 37 it  is  stated  that,  "Where  the  trustee  is  empowered  to  sell  any  trust  property...by  public  auction  or  private  contract and either at one time or at several  times..." the duty of trustee is to obtain  the  best  price.  He  should,  therefore,  use  reasonable diligence in inviting competition  to that end. Where a contract of sale has  been entered into bona fide by a trustee the  court will not allow it to be rescinded or  invalidated because another purchaser conies  forward  with  a  higher  price.  It  would,  however,  be  improper  for  the  trustee  to  contract  in  circumstances  of  haste  and  improvidence. Where in a trust for sale and  payment of creditors the trustee sold at a  gross under valuation showing a preference to  one of the creditors, he was held guilty, of  breach of trust. If the purchaser is privy of  

2

Page 21

the  fraud  the  property  itself  can  be  recovered from him."

17. The sale may be either by public auction  or  private  contract.  In  either  case  the  trustee  has  to  keep  in  mind  that  he  must  obtain the most advantageous price. Kerr on  Receivers 17th Edition, at page 208 stated  that "a receiver, however, is not expected  any more than a trustee or an executor to  take more care of their property entrusted  

to him than he would have as a reasonably  prudent man of business". In Halsbury's Law  of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 39, at para 919  it  is  stated  that  the  "receiver  will  be  compelled  to  show  that  he  has  acted  with  perfect regularity and has used such degree  of  prudence  as  would  be  expected  from  a  private  individual  in  relation  to  his  own  affairs".  The  trustee  or  a  receiver  is,  therefore, duty bound to protect and preserve  the  property  in  his  possession  and  the  standard  of  conduct  expected  of  him,  in  dealing with the property or sale thereof, is  as a prudent owner would exercise in dealing  with his own property or estate. The degree  of care expected of him in handling property  taken possession of is measured by the degree  of  care  expected  of  a  person  acting  as  trustee, executors or assignees. The object  and  endeavour  should  also  be  to  secure  maximum advantage or price in a sale of the  property in lots or as whole, as exigencies  warrant.”

2

Page 22

Though, this case was subsequently overruled by this  

Court by a three judge bench decision in the case of  

Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil  

Mills and Anr.3 on the point of guiding principles laid  

down   to  sell  mortgaged  property  by  the  Financial  

Corporation  under  Section  29  of  the  State  Financial  

Corporations Act, 1951 (in  short ‘SFC Act’). However,  

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that  

case  and  as  per  Section  29  of  the  SFC  Act,  the  

guidelines laid down in the case of Mahesh Chandra were  found fault with to sell the property mortgaged with  

Financial  Corporations.   However,  the  principle  of  

Public Trust Doctrine referred to in  Mahesh Chandra’s  

case (supra) shall be applied to fact situation at hand  

as the public interest has adversely affected in this  

case.  Notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  decision  in  

Jagdamba  Oil  Mills’s  case  (supra)  in  overruling  

guidelines laid down in  Mahesh Chandra’s  case keeping  3 (2002) 3 SCC 496

2

Page 23

in view the reasonableness and fairness in action shall  

be adhered by the state and its instrumentalities is  

the ratio laid down by this court to pass the test of  

Article 14 reiterated after referring to three Judge  

Bench decisions in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.  

International Airport Authority of India & Ors.4 M/s  

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. v. State of Jammu and  

Kashmir & Anr.5  and other catena of cases which were  

mentioned  in  the  case  of  Akhil  Bhartiya  Upbhokta  

Congress  v.  State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.6 are aptly  

applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand.

32. Therefore, in the light of the legal principle laid  

down by this Court with regard to Public Trust Doctrine  

in  Mahesh  Chandra’s case  (supra)  and  the  cases  

mentioned supra, we are inclined to observe that the  

liquidator did not act fairly and reasonably in the  

best interest of the public of the State whose interest  4 (1979) 3 SCC 489 5 (1980) 4 SCC 1 6 (2011) 5 SCC 29

2

Page 24

he is required to uphold. As per the material evidence  

put  on  record,  the  liquidator  and  the  concerned  

authority  did  not  take  any  step  to  improve  the  

condition of the land and sell it at reasonable and  

standard price prevalent at the time of sale of the  

property in question.

33. Hence, we hold that the tender process initiated by  

the appellants is not legal and is liable to be set  

aside. We direct the concerned authority to issue fresh  

notice of tender for selling the land. The notice shall  

be  made  available  in  government  websites  and  other  

local and national newspapers so as to encourage and  

invite more bidders. In the meanwhile, the authority  

shall take all necessary steps to improve and restore  

the condition of the land so as to make the purchase of  

the land free from legal encumbrances.

 34. Since, the respondent had paid up the entire bid  

amount, it is entitled to refund of the entire amount.  

Further, since it is also proved that the amount paid  

2

Page 25

by the respondent has been used to pay the arrears, the  

respondent is entitled to interest for the amount paid  

@7% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of  

refund.

35. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 2.2.2012  

passed by the High Court of Guwahati in M.C. No.5 of  

2012  in  Writ  Appeal  Sl.  No.168339  of  2011  after  

condoning the delay and consequently we allow the writ  

appeal by allowing this Civil Appeal.  

    ………………………………………………………………………J.

            [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]                                                       

 ………………………………………………………………………J.

             [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,  April 23, 2014.  

2