Page 47 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

2020 ] BINTY v. UNION OF INDIA 133
Consumer Welfare Fund - Scope of refund - Court cannot direct refund
of amount to unidentifiable customers/consumers - Article 226 of Constitution
of India. [para 11]
Writ jurisdiction - Half-baked petition - Maintainability - Earlier peti-
tion of petitioner was dismissed being half-baked, lacking content and struc-
ture - Present petition is also deficient in substance and is also entirely with-
out a valid cause of action for court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction -
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [para 12]
Writ petition - Legal vis-à-vis sympathetic view - Utilization of Con-
sumer Welfare Fund - Legally cause of action is missing in writ petitions filed
by petitioner for utilization of amount of Fund ibid for a particular Hospital -
However, petitioner has tried to give a colour of nobility to garner sympathy
of Court - This attempt to garner sympathy, even if cause is sincere, cannot
infuse legal strength in petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 13]
Writ jurisdiction - Policy matters - Consumer Welfare Fund - Donation
of unclaimed or unpaid amount of unidentified consumers to Hospital and
Doctors fighting COVID-19 - Petitioner in his PIL, relying on Constitutional
provisions in pleading to convert Consumer Welfare Fund Bill, 2010 into Con-
sumer Welfare Fund Rules, 2010 for purpose mentioned above - HELD : Mere
reliance on provisions of Constitution is not enough to maintain a Writ Peti-
tion - Court cannot assume role of legislature to convert a proposed Bill into
Law notwithstanding pendency of Bill with legislature for quite some time - It
is for Parliament or Executive to decide as to how amount lying in aforesaid
Fund is to be utilized - Being a Policy matter, Courts cannot give sermons to
legislature on this issue - It is not a case of petitioner that amount is being
misutilized against statutory mandate - Accordingly, present writ petition, in-
ter alia, mainly not maintainable on this ground alone - Article 226 of Consti-
tution of India. [paras 6, 7, 8]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir — 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 — Relied on ................... [Para 6]
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass — (2008) 1 SCC 683 — Relied on .......... [Para 6]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Distinguished .... [Paras 4, 8]
Suresh Seth v. Commr., Indore Municipal Corpn. — (2005) 13 SCC 287 — Relied on .................... [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate, for the
Petitioner.
S/Shri Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms.
Maninder Acharya, ASG, Dhananjaya Mishra, ASC,
Abhigyan Siddhant, Shaurya Jain, Viplav Acharya,
Ms. Nisha Sharma, Rajesh Manchanda and Rajat
Manchanda, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Manmohan, J. (Oral)]. - CM APPL. 11076/2020 :
Allowed, subject to just exception.
W.P. (C) 3187/2020
1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view
of the urgency expressed therein.
2. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
3. It is pertinent to mention that present public interest litigation has
GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  47