16 May 2024 Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Constitutional & Government >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

In a recent order, the Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to refund a deposit of Rs 2,57,405 to a religious leader.

Background:

The Petitioner had sought permission to organize a prayer meet but faced cancellation due to police denial. The leader deposited various charges with different authorities, including the BMC, for the event. While all other authorities refunded the deposits upon cancellation, the BMC withheld its share. The Court found no legal grounds for the BMC to retain the deposit. The judge remarked that such withholding would "amount to unjust enrichment" for the civic body.

No Legal Basis for Withholding Funds:

The Court highlighted the absence of any policy, term, or condition allowing the BMC to forfeit the deposit in case of permission denial. The order emphasized that a refund "would obviously be an entitlement of the Petitioner commonsensically."

The Petitioner's lawyer argued that withholding the deposit violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion:

The Court rejected the BMC's request for a stay on the order but granted them four weeks to comply due to election duty commitments. The Petitioner also waived their initial request for interest on the refunded amount and did not pursue court costs.

This order serves as a reminder for authorities to act within legal boundaries when handling public funds. It also highlights the importance of clear policies and communication to avoid unnecessary disputes.