The Petitioner, a Reverend, intended to organize the "Mumbai Shanti Mohotsav 2022: A Prayer Meet" at the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) grounds in Bandra Kurla Complex on May 12, 2022. To secure the necessary permissions, he submitted applications to multiple authorities, including the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) Police Station, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), and fire safety officials. Alongside his applications, he deposited substantial sums totaling over ?26 lakh for various fees, including ?2,57,405 as temporary Non-Agricultural charges.

However, on May 18, 2022, the BKC Police Station denied permission for the event. Following this refusal, the Petitioner received refunds from all relevant authorities except the SDO, who did not provide any reasons for withholding the amount.

Frustrated by the lack of communication and resolution, the Petitioner sought legal recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His lawyer, Mr. Sangvikar, argued that the SDO's refusal to refund the amount constituted a violation of fundamental rights, including Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice any Profession), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

In contrast, the Respondents, represented by Ms. Chaudhari, claimed that there was no existing policy that allowed for the refund of such charges upon cancellation of an event. They pointed out that while they had refunded other fees, the Non-Agricultural charges remained unreturned due to a lack of a formal policy governing such situations.

After thorough deliberation, the court expressed confusion over the Respondents' position. The judges emphasized that, even in the absence of a refund policy, there was no contractual basis for forfeiting the deposits. The court noted that withholding the funds would result in unjust enrichment for the Respondents, as there was no legal authority to retain the money after the event’s cancellation.

Citing precedents that stress the necessity of refunds in similar contexts, the court found in favor of the Petitioner. It asserted that the SDO was obligated to refund the amount promptly, given the lack of any legal grounds for withholding it.

Ultimately, the court ordered the immediate refund of ?2,57,405 to the Petitioner within two weeks and dismissed the notion of any further claims for interest due to the relatively small amount involved. While the Petitioner was entitled to legal costs, he chose not to pursue them out of fairness.

This ruling underscores the importance of clear policies regarding the refund of fees and the need for government bodies to act transparently in their dealings with the public. It serves as a reminder that citizens have the right to seek redress when faced with unjust practices, reinforcing the principles of accountability and equity within government operations.