Administrative Inconvenience Is No Reason To Defy Right For 15 Years: High Court Directs Release Of Lapsed Deposit In West Bengal's Treasury Dept

While deprecating the inaction and ‘shifting the blame game’ by one authority to another, the Calcutta High Court held that administrative inconvenience or lethargy cannot be reason enough to defy a right for fifteen years.

The High Court held so while considering a petition challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in releasing the lapsed deposit amount as per the order passed by the Civil Judge in a Pre-emption case of 2004.

The High Court found that the District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, repeatedly harped upon administrative reasons for the lack of deposit statements from 1984-85 onwards, but always re-iterated the right of the petitioners to receive the said deposit and cited other instances wherein such refunds were made based on skeleton statements.

Such requests for special sanction of refund and information about the same were made by the District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, time and again, to the Accountant General (A&E) and Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, but to no avail, added the Court.

A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that “The procrastination on behalf of the authorities is clearly without any logical reasoning and simpliciter a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the authorities”.

Advocate Kishor Mukherjee appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Suman Dey appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioners have purchased a plot of land in Medinipore. In the meanwhile, one Ram Sundar Ponda along with others filed a Pre-emption case against the petitioners and in the said case, the petitioners duly deposited the value of the land i.e Rs. 66,000/- in the Treasury Department, Midnapore, Government of West Bengal. During the pendency of the said Pre-emption case, both parties settled the dispute out of Court and a compromise petition was filed before the Civil Judge. Therein, the said pre-emption case was disposed of wherein the petitioners were given the liberty to withdraw the said deposit. Later, the petitioners stated that the Order dated March 4, 2008, was passed, but the Court failed to discharge the release of the said amount on the grounds that the said amount has been deemed to be a lapse deposit. Even though Civil Judge intimated the District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, to take steps for refund of the lapse amount of Rs. 66,000 to the petitioners, and on the same date, an application for sanction of such amount in favour of the petitioners was also sent to the Accountant General, Government of West Bengal by the Civil Judge, there was non-compliance of the respondent authorities in not refunding the said lapsed deposit amount to the tune of Rs 66,000 along with interest in favour of the petitioners, to which they are very much entitled to. Hence, the petitioners approached the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench found an unfortunate scenario wherein the petitioners have had to vie with pain for the refund of the deposit they made in court.

“There is no dispute about the fact that such deposit was made before the court as evident from the letter and application dated June 23, 2008, signed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhbeta”, added the Bench.

The High Court noted that the District Judge, Paschim Medinipur had requested the Accountant General (A&E) to sanction the relapsed deposit amount to the petitioners along with a skeleton statement after the due counter signature with the necessary certificate.

“The District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, repeated the said request to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, vide letter dated December 1, 2012. The response from the Accountant General (A&E) was that such sanction cannot be made owing to lack of deposit statements”, added the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondent to sanction and return the lapsed deposit amount of INR 66,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the petitioner within six weeks.

Cause Title: Shubhendu Kumar Goswami and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment