Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Emphasis added)

38. Bachawat, J. held that a writ under Article 32 will no doubt issue as a matter of course where infringement of fundamental right is established but that does not mean that in giving relief under the said article, this Court would ignore all laws and procedure. The learned Judge also emphasised the discretionary nature of jurisdiction.

39. Reference may also be made to the decision of K.K. Mathew, J. (sitting with Alagiriswami, J.) in D. Cawasji & Co. Etc. v. State of Mysore and Anr. . The appellant paid education cess levied under the Mysore Elementary Education Act, 1941 (as amended in 1968). The Mysore High Court struck down the relevant provisions levying the cess in 1968 on a writ petition filed by the appellant, which was affirmed by this Court in 1971. In the middle of the year 1968, the appellant filed a writ petition claiming refund of the cess amount paid by him. The claim was rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay. On the matter being brought to this Court, this Court held following Bhailal Bhai and Aluminium Industries that taxes paid without the authority of law can be recovered by way of a writ petition and that by virtue of Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation does not begin to run, in a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, until the plaintiff has discovered the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. Mathew, J. did realise the implication of the said holding. The learned Judge make these perceptive observations: