Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradyumn Kumar Shrivastava vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
1 WP-6895-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6895 of 2013
PRADYUMN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Udyan Tiwari - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Neeraj Tiwari -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
“7.1 That by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the
Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the Respondents to act on
the order dated 27/03/08(Ann P-3), and make the payment at the
earliest.
7.2 That by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, the
Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the respondents to pay to
the petitioner 24% p.a. interest on the withheld amount w.e.f.
27/03/08 till the date of actual payment.
7.3. Any other Writ, Order or Direction, as may be deemed fit,
may also be granted together with awarding the costs of the
proceedings.”
2. The facts of the case, in short are that the petitioner is working as an
Engineer. He was appointed as a Registered Valuer in the Income Tax
Department and since then he was doing the valuation work assigned to him
by the department. As per the assignment given to the petitioner for
valuation/search in the case of Chinar Group in 2004, he completed the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
2 WP-6895-2013
work and a bill was submitted in September, 2004. The said bill was not
cleared. The payment for the said work remained unpaid. The petitioner
made several requests to the authorities to make payment for the said work,
but all in vain.
3. Thereafter, after a long time, the respondent-departmental initiated
action in relation to granting sanction for the unpaid bill of the petitioner.
The Income Tax Officer (Hqrs) for Commissioner of Income Tax Bhopal,
issued an order dated 20/03/08, in reply to the letter of Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, returning the bills with request to verify the
same and return without further delay, a copy whereof is Annexure P/1. The
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax issued an order dated 25/03/2008, in
reply to Annexure P/1, mentioning that further work of valuation, in the
same case, during the assessment of block period, was assigned to the
petitioner by the then DCIT-2(1), for which the bills were raised by the
petitioner. The work done was verified and was also verified that the
petitioner was not paid for the further work, a copy where of is Annexure P-
2.
4. After the verification was done, the Commissioner of Income Tax,
Bhopal passed an order on 27.03.2008 (Annexure P/3) granting Financial and
Administrative sanction for payment of Rs. 3,95,867/ to the petitioner.
However, in spite of the said sanction, the Zonal Account Officer returned
the bill with an objection that the non-payment certificate is not affixed.
Copy of the Bill Return Memo dated 31.03.2008 is filed Annexure P/4.
5. It is submitted that the procedure followed by the Income Tax
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
3 WP-6895-2013
Department for payment to a valuer is that after sanction by the
Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), the bill is forwarded by the Drawing
and Disbursing Officer (DDO) to the Zonal Accounts Officer (ZAO) along
with a Non-Payment Certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax (ACIT), upon which the payment is made. In the present case,
an objection was raised on the ground that the verification order of the ACIT
(Annexure P/2) was not submitted with the relevant documents. This lapse is
solely attributable to the department. The omission appears to be a deliberate
act on the part of the respondents to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that
in similar valuation cases, the same procedure was duly followed and
payments were released without objection. The petitioner has also placed on
record a copy of the order dated 21.02.2008 granting financial and
administrative sanction, pursuant to which the Zonal Accounts Officer issued
a cheque dated 17.03.2008 for Rs. 11,811/- in favour of the petitioner
(Annexure P-5).
6. It is further submitted that sanction for the bills, which were due
since September 2004, had already been granted by the Commissioner of
Income Tax (CIT). Despite such sanction, the payment has not been released
to date. This clearly reflects the mala fide intention of the respondents and
amounts to a violation of the applicable Government rules. The petitioner
made several requests for settlement of the outstanding amount, but all
proved futile. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal/complaint
(Annexure P/6) before the Income Tax Ombudsman. The Income Tax
Ombudsman, by order dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P/7) disposed of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
4 WP-6895-2013
complaint without granting any relief stating that it lacked jurisdiction in the
matter.
7. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in failing to
release the payment, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for
appropriate direction to the respondents.
8. The respondents have filed a synopsis in reply to the averments
made in the petition submitting that a search and seizure operation was
conducted in the case of the Chinar Builders Group on 21.02.2002. Pursuant
thereto, an amount of Rs. 6,46,250/- was paid to the petitioner by the
Investigation Wing, Bhopal towards valuation of properties.
9. It is further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the
assessee obtained a separate valuation report from another registered valuer
and raised objections to the petitioner’s valuation. Accordingly, the then
DCIT-2(1), Bhopal, vide letter dated 13.09.2004, sought comments from the
petitioner, which were duly furnished on 21.09.2004. Subsequently, the
petitioner raised ten fee bills dated 21.12.2004 amounting to Rs. 4,27,677/-.
10. The respondent has contended that payment for the original
valuation work had already been made by the Investigation Wing and that
the petitioner was only called upon to furnish comments on the objections
raised by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. It is asserted that
there is no provision under the Wealth Tax Act for payment of fees for such
comments, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim for additional payment is not
tenable.
11. It is further submitted that the Zonal Accounts Officer rightly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
5 WP-6895-2013
sought a Non-Payment Certificate in view of the bills pertaining to the year
2004. Upon verification, it was found that payment for valuation in the
Chinar Group case had already been made. Although the bills were
forwarded to the ZAO along with administrative and financial sanction from
the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal, and the requisite Non-Payment
Certificate was subsequently obtained, it came to light that no further
payment could be made for the same work, particularly in absence of any
statutory provision for payment of fees for comments.
12. Accordingly, the respondents submit that the petitioner’s claim is
not admissible. Consequently, no question of payment of interest arises,
especially in absence of any provision for payment of interest on such fees.
13. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder controverting the averments
made in the synopsis submitted by the respondents. The petitioner has denied
the contents thereof as being incorrect and misconceived and has reiterated
the submissions, grounds, and documents relied upon in the writ petition. It is
submitted that the stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law and on
facts.
14. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel that the
petitioner has performed certain work for the respondent-Income Tax
Department for which bills were raised from time to time of which payments
were also made, however, for some additional work, the payment has not
been made and the Bill No. 933 dated 28.03.2008 of Rs. 3,64,565/- was
raised, however, that has not been paid. It is further submitted that the
Department vide communications Annexures P/1 dated 20.03.2008, P/2
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
6 WP-6895-2013
dated 25.03.2008, P/3 dated 27.03.2008 and P/4 dated 31.03.2008 though
admitted that such amount is required to be paid to the petitioner but for one
or the other reason that has not been paid. It is further submitted that in the
return the stand has been taken that the petitioner has been paid Rs.
6,46,250/- and it is further submitted that the petitioner has already been paid
for his work by the Investigation Wing. It is further submitted that the
communications, which have been pointed out by the petitioner, are inter-
departmental communications i.e. in regard to calling for the comments on
the said bills and there is no admission on the part of the respondents that this
amount is due against the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted
that the disputed question of fact in regard to quantum of payment cannot be
adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for that the
efficacious remedy is to file a suit and prove their case that the petitioner is
entitled for the said amount for the work, which has been done by him.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. It is apparent from the Annexures P/1 to P/4 that there were some
communications between the department officers in regard to non-payment
of the bills of the petitioner. Annexure P/4, which is a Bill Return Memo,
demonstrates that the Bill No. 933 dated 28.03.2008 amounting to Rs.
3,64,565/- has been submitted. For reason of returning in Sl. No.4, hand
written by the officer, it is written that the as the bills relate to the period of
September, 2004, a non-payment certificate be also affixed on the body of
the individual’s claim after ascertaining the fact of payment/non-payment at
an earlier occasion. The said document has not been denied by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
7 WP-6895-2013
respondents that it is not written by the officers of the respondent
Department, which clearly depicts that there was bill, which was raised,
however, due to non-payment certificate by the departmental authorities,
who have forwarded the bill for the payment, the endorsement has been
made that due to not affixing the non-payment certificate on the body of the
individual claim, the payment was not made.
17. During the course of arguments, the respondent has raised question
of limitation on the ground that the bill is of 2008 and the petition has been
filed in the year 2013, which shows that the claim was time barred, however,
from the perusal of the return, it is found that no ground in regard to
limitation has been taken. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash
Gaikwad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2010)
11 SCC 433 has held that an issue, which is not raised in the writ petition,
cannot be raised in arguments and therefore, the arguments have been
rejected. In the similar facts and circumstances, the respondent herein has not
raised the ground of limitation in the return, however, taking into
consideration that the ground, which has been raised is a legal ground, from
the facts of the case, it is found that the petitioner was agitating his claim
continuously before the authorities and vide Annexure P/7 dated 29.01.2013,
the Ombudsman has communicated its decision holding that the Ombudsman
has no jurisdiction in such matters and thereafter the petition has been filed,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is not time
barred.
18. It is trite law that by only disputing the claim in the return, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
8 WP-6895-2013
claim does not become disputed unless from the contents of the claim it is
found that the parties have not admitted the claim. From the bare perusal of
the documents, it is found that the authorities themselves have been
communicating with each other regarding the claim of the petitioner and the
same has not been paid for not having non-payment certificate.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd.
and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and
others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 in para 27 has held as under:-
“16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a writ petition
involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires
consideration of evidence which is not on record, will not
normally be entertained by a court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
decision again, in our opinion, does not lay down an absolute rule
that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties
should be relegated to a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are
supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant
Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769]
where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of fact in
a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16)
“14. The High Court observed that they will not determine
disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts
were in dispute and what were admitted could only be
determined after an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State.
The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition
in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction
to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in
considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact
may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the
High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.
Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the
discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles.
When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex
nature, which may for their determination require oral
evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is
of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in
a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition.
Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified,
where the High Court is of the view that the petition is
frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute
sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party
against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the
dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriateSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:243359 WP-6895-2013
to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.
15. From the averments made in the petition filed by the
appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of
allegations the appellants relied upon documentary evidence
and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may
possibly arise related to the due publication of the
notification under Section 4 by the Collector.
16. In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was
not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it
will not determine disputed question of fact. The High Court
has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they
are in dispute and the present, in our judgment, is a case in
which in the interests of both the parties the High Court
should have entertained the petition and called for an
affidavit-in-reply from the respondents, and should have
proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the
appellants to a separate suit.”
19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that
merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute
in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound
to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant
Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even went to the extent of
holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral
evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate
case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition
involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar
for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a
contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of
fact.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent then contended that
though the principal prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the
letters of repudiation by the first respondent, in fact the writ
petition is one for a “money claim” which cannot be granted in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our
opinion, this argument of the learned counsel also cannot be
accepted in its absolute terms. This Court in the case of U.P.
Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC
549] while dealing with the question of refund of money in a writ
petition after discussing the earlier case-law on this subject held:
(SCC pp. 556-58, paras 12 & 16-17)
“12. In the para extracted above, in a similar situation as
arising in the present cases relating to the very question of
refund, while answering the said question affirmatively, this
Court pointed out that the courts have made distinction
between those cases where a claimant approached a High
Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where
refund was sought as a consequential relief after striking
down of the order of assessment etc. In these cases also the
claims made for refund in the writ petitions were consequent
upon declaration of law made by this Court. Hence, the HighSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2433510 WP-6895-2013
Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petitions.
* *
*
16. In support of the submission that a writ petition seeking
mandamus for mere refund of money was not maintainable,
the decision in Suganmal v. State of M.P. [AIR 1965 SC
1740] was cited. In AIR para 6 of the said judgment, it is
stated that
‘we are of the opinion that though the High Courts have
power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the
powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such
a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus
directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily
maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a
refund can always be made in a suit against the authority
which had illegally collected the money as a tax’.
17. Again in AIR para 9, the Court held:
‘We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying
for the refund of money against the State by a writ of
mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has
the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount
and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the
claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be
appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction.’
This judgment cannot be read as laying down the law that no writ
petition at all can be entertained where claim is made for only
refund of money consequent upon declaration of law that levy and
collection of tax/cess is unconstitutional or without the authority
of law. It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power
under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus
for making refund of the money illegally collected. It is yet
another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly
depending on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance,
in the cases on hand where facts are not in dispute, collection of
money as cess was itself without the authority of law; no case of
undue enrichment was made out and the amount of cess was paid
under protest; the writ petitions were filed within a reasonable
time from the date of the declaration that the law under which
tax/cess was collected was unconstitutional. There is no good
reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens in such cases on
the principles of public interest and equity in the light of the cases
cited above. However, it must not be understood that in all cases
where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional
or invalid, the refund should necessarily follow. We wish to add
that even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to
be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic
consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on
facts and circumstances of a given case.”
26. Therefore, this objection must also fail because in a given case
it is open to the writ court to give such monetary relief also.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
11 WP-6895-2013
27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal
principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or
an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual
obligation is maintainable.
(b ) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for
consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain
a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of
monetary claim is also maintainable.
28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that
the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the
Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other
provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to
the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) And this
plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not
normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other
available remedies unless such action of the State or its
instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the
constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and
legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to
exercise the said jurisdiction.”
Further in the case of Food Corporation of India and another vs. SEIL
Ltd. and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 440, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
paragraphs 24 and 25 has held as under:-
“24. The High Court, in an appropriate case, may grant such relief
to which the writ petitioner would be entitled to in law as well as
in equity.
25. We do not, thus, find any substance in the contention of Mr
Sharan that while exercising its review jurisdiction, no interest on
the principal sum could have been directed to be granted by the
High Court. A writ court exercises its power of review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself. While exercising the
said jurisdiction, it not only acts as a court of law but also as a
court of equity. A clear error or omission on the part of the court
to consider a justifiable claim on its part would be subject to
review; amongst others on the principle of actus curiae neminem
gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice none). We appreciate
the manner in which the learned Judge accepted his mistake and
granted relief to the respondents.”
20. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of facts and law, it is clear that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24335
12 WP-6895-2013
the claim of the petitioner was pending before the respondents Department
for not having the non-payment certificate, which is of-course required to be
given by the authority forwarding the claim to the higher authority for
sanction.
21. From the perusal of order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P/3) it is
clear that the financial and administrative sanction for payment has also
been granted by the Commissioner, Income Tax. Therefore, the petition is
disposed of with direction to the respondent Department to consider the case
of the petitioner in the light of Annexures P/1 to P/4 afresh and in case the
payment and bills are due then the same be paid to the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date communication of this order. In case, if
the Department comes to the conclusion that such amount is not due against
the petitioner then a reasoned speaking order be passed accordingly.
22. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 16-04-2026
10:43:12