‘Refund Was Commonsensical’: Bombay HC Orders BMC To Refund Deposit For Cancelled Event

Petitioner had initially submitted the deposit while seeking permission to organize the 'Mumbai Shanti Mohotsav 2022, a Prayer Meet' at the MMRDA ground. However, the event faced cancellation as permission was denied by the Mumbai police. While both the MMRDA and the sub-divisional officer of the state government promptly refunded deposits, the BMC declined, citing the absence of a relevant policy.

The Division Bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Kamal Khata underscored the evident entitlement of petitioner to a refund, given his inability to utilize the ground for an event. The Court criticized the BMC's stance, describing it as "baffling."

The Court added, “We are to say the least, baffled by the stand taken by the Respondents. Assuming there is no policy of refund, there also is no term, provision, or condition in the ‘application for permission’ to forfeit the amounts so deposited for seeking permission in the event the same is refused. A refund would obviously be an entitlement of the Petitioner commonsensically. A forfeiture of such amounts would clearly and unambiguously amount to unjust enrichment in the hands of the Respondents.”

Advocate Vinod P Sangvikar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate MP Thakur appeared for the Respondent.

The Court expressed incredulity at the necessity for the petitioner, a Christian reverend, to resort to legal recourse over such a straightforward matter.

The Court added, “In our view, the absence of any such term or condition in the application/contract/agreement, or statutory provision or circular would clearly disentitle the Respondents to withhold or forfeit the amounts received for permissions sought to conduct an event. The Petitioner ought not to have been compelled to file this Petition in the first place. It was obligatory on the part of the SDO to apply his mind and the law and refund the amount to the Petitioner.”

The High Court directed the BMC to promptly refund the amount to petitioner within a two-week timeframe.

The High Court expressed bewilderment at the BMC's position, highlighting the absence of any policy dictating the forfeiture of deposits in such circumstances. It noted that neither the application process nor any statutory provisions or circulars provided grounds for such forfeiture.

Consequently, the Court ruled that in the absence of any explicit conditions within the application or legal provisions permitting forfeiture, the BMC was not justified in withholding the deposit.

Cause Title: Pradip v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., [2024:BHC-AS:22445-DB]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates MP Thakur, Vaishali Chaudhari, Aslam Tadvi, Anand Khairnar, & Santosh Parad with Ravindra Shirsekar.

Click here to read/download Judgment