Judgment :- Shivaraj Patil, J. This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13203 of 1989, aggrieved by the order dated 14. 1990 passed in the said writ petition dismissing it. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, are the following: The appellant filed two writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos. 13200 and 13203 of 1989 seeking two different reliefs on the basis of common set of facts. In W.P.No.13200 of 1989, he sought for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from demanding payment of interest of Rs.4,69,832.87 being the interest on belated payment of difference in the cost of arrack alleged to be due and payable by it. 3. Writ Petition No. 13203 of 1989 was filed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Government of Tamil Nadu relating to G.O.Ms.No.149, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 25. 1977 and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to refund a sum of Rs.11,00,188.90 with interest at 12% per annum. 4. The appellant company was granted the privilege of manufacturing and selling of arrack by wholesale during the excise years 1972-73 and 1973-74. For the excise year 1973-74 a notification was issued by the second respondent on 7. 1973 fixing the price of molasses arrack at Rs.3.55 per litre. The breakup of the price was as follows: .(a) Excise duty.... Rs.2.60 per litre. .(b) Gallonage fee .... Rs.0.25 per litre. .(c) Cost of arrack... Rs.0.70 per litre. 5. It appears the Government of Tamil Nadu had appointed a Committee called Narasimhan Committee to fix up the price of arrack per litre to be sold by whole sale dealers. The appellant states that when the Notification fixing the price was issued on 7. 1973 at Rs.3.55 per litre it was not indicated that the said price was subject to the price to be fixed by Narasimhan Committee. By the communication dated 27. 1973 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Excise) it was informed that the distilleries should refund to the Government the difference between the present price for arrack viz., 0.70 Paise per litre, and the price to be finally fixed by the Government with reference to the report of Narasimhan committee. 6. By the communication dated 27. 1973 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Excise) it was informed that the distilleries should refund to the Government the difference between the present price for arrack viz., 0.70 Paise per litre, and the price to be finally fixed by the Government with reference to the report of Narasimhan committee. 6. On the basis of the price so fixed, the appellant was compelled to pay the difference of price amounting to Rs.11,00,188.90 to the Government. Since there was delay in payment of the said differential price by the appellant, the respondents demanded interest on that amount which worked out to Rs.4,69,8387. Aggrieved by the demand of interest the petitioner filed W.P.No.13200 of 1989 and he filed W.P.No.13203 of 1989 for refund of the amount paid by the appellant towards differential cost, in compliance of G.O.Ms.No.3101 (Home Department) dated 112. 1979 renewing the distillery licence of the appellant on condition of payment of the said amount. 7. Similar writ petitions had been filed by other distilleries challenging such demand of difference of price. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. In Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8. 1985 accepted the case of the appellant in the said appeal viz., Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Limited. The Division Bench held that there was no legal sanction for the demand made by the State Government for recovering the differential cost. In that view the order of the learned single Judge was set aside and the demands made by the respondents were quashed. Accordingly the respondents were restrained from enforcing the demand. The said Judgment is reported in Tiruchi Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. represented by its director V.T.Somasundaram, Madras v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1986 W.L.R. 37. The Special Leave Petition No.3788 and 3789 of 1986 filed by the State Government challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24. 1986 confirming the said Division Bench Judgment of this Court. 8. The learned single Judge, having regard to the Division Bench Judgment aforementioned, allowed Writ Petition No. 13200 of 1989, but dismissed W.P.No. 13203 of 1989 on the ground of delay and laches, by the common order dated 14. 1990. 1986 confirming the said Division Bench Judgment of this Court. 8. The learned single Judge, having regard to the Division Bench Judgment aforementioned, allowed Writ Petition No. 13200 of 1989, but dismissed W.P.No. 13203 of 1989 on the ground of delay and laches, by the common order dated 14. 1990. The consequence of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 13203 of 1989 is that the claim made by the appellant for refund of the sum of Rs.11,00,188.90 with interest at 12% is denied. Under the circumstances, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No. 13203 of 1989. 9. Shri N.T.Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge, having allowed writ Petition No. 13200 of 1989 following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case in Writ Appeal No.279 of 1980, ought to have allowed W.P.No. 13203 of 1989 also, on the same principle and for the very reasons; after fixation of the price of arrack, the appellant and others represented to the respondents to revise the issue of price between 1975-1977; G.O.Ms.No.149 was issued on 25. 1977 directing the distilleries to pay the differential cost of arrack in full; the appellant paid the differential cost of Rs.11,00,188.90 pursuant to the coercive step taken by the Government, putting it as a condition for renewal of the distillery licence; in fact the amounts were paid under protest; the writ petition filed by M/s.Tiruchi Distilleries and Chemicals Limited was dismissed; however the Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 was allowed on 8. 1985; Special Leave Petitions filed against the said Division Bench Judgment were dismissed on 24. 1986; the appellant bona fide believing that, on the same principle on which the demands made against M/ s.Tiruchy Distilleries and others were quashed, its claim also would be allowed by the State Government, and there was no necessity for every party to rush to the Court, made a representation on 5. 1986. But the State Government informed the petitioner on 25. 1987 turning down the request of the appellant for refund of differential cost of arrack without giving any reason. 10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant made one more representation on 20.11.1987 giving the details of the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 on 8. 1985 and the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. 1987 turning down the request of the appellant for refund of differential cost of arrack without giving any reason. 10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant made one more representation on 20.11.1987 giving the details of the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 on 8. 1985 and the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. on 24. 1986, bona fide believing that, looking to the said judgments of the Division Bench of this High Court and the Apex Court, and the reason contained therein, its case for refund would be considered; after waiting for quite some time, expecting to get a favourable reply, it sent one more reminder on 25. 1989 when nothing was heard from the State Government; it is only on 17. 1989 the State Government wrote a letter to the appellant that there was no case to reconsider their earlier order rejecting the request for refund of differential cost of arrack. .11. The learned senior counsel, under the circumstances, submitted that there was no wanton delay or laches on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court when it filed writ petitions on 29. 1989, within two months of the refusal of the State Government to refund the amount. The learned counsel further submitted that when the State Government was not at all entitled and authorised to collect the differential cost under G.O.Ms.No.149, dated 25. 1977, the amount of Rs.l 1,00,188.90 collected from the appellant by using coercive methods was clearly unjust and unauthorised; and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on me ground of delay and laches. 12. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, in his arguments supported the order of the learned single Judge which is under appeal. He submitted that nothing prevented the appellant from filing writ petition earlier when other writ petitions were filed; even after disposal of Writ Appeal No.279 of 1980 on 8. 1985 the appellant did not approach this Court immediately; further there was no justification for the appellant to file writ petition only on 29. 1989 merely on the ground that it had been making representations to the State Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge in the impugned order in support of his submission. 1989 merely on the ground that it had been making representations to the State Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the decisions referred to by the learned single Judge in the impugned order in support of his submission. In particular, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.Gawasji and Company v. State of Mysore and another, 1978 E.L.T. 154 contending that the amount collected as tax was intended for immediate expenditure for the common good and that it would be unjust to require its repayment after it has been in whole or in part expended. The learned single judge also relied on the said Judgment to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. .14. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the demand made by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.149, Prohibition & Excise Department dated 25. 1977 was clearly illegal and unauthorised. Similar demands made against other distilleries, similarly placed as that of the appellant, were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 disposed of on 8. 1985. The said Judgment of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Apex Court. The learned single Judge following the said Judgment allowed Writ Petition No.13200 of 1989 filed by the appellant. The amount of Rs.11,00,188.90 was collected from the appellant by use of coercive steps towards differential cost of price of arrack. It is to be stated here itself that the said amount of Rs.l 1,00,188.90 was not collected as tax. The said amount collected was without the authority of law having regard to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court aforementioned in the case of Tiruchi Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd., represented by its Director V.T.Somasundaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1986 W.L.R. 37. 15. The respondents opposed the Writ Petition No.13203 of 1989 raising the technical plea of laches and delay. A belated or stale claim may not be enquired into by a court not as a rule of law but as a rule of practice based on proper and sound exercise of discretion. It cannot be said that in all cases wherever there is delay, the court must, necessarily, refuse to entertain a Writ Petition. A belated or stale claim may not be enquired into by a court not as a rule of law but as a rule of practice based on proper and sound exercise of discretion. It cannot be said that in all cases wherever there is delay, the court must, necessarily, refuse to entertain a Writ Petition. Whether a writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches or not depends on the facts of each case. Essentially, the question is one of discretion in such matters of entertaining the writ petition in cases of delay. 16. The case on hand is not one where on account of delay and laches, any rights have accrued to the third parties and entertaining the writ petition belatedly would result in hardship to others. Further having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it cannot be said that the appellant slept over his rights and that it was not bona fide in making representations to the State Government having regard to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the decision of the Apex Court aforementioned, hoping that its case also would be considered favourably, particularly so the respondent being the State. 17. In our view, the decision in D.Cawasji and Co. and others v. State of Mysore and another, 1978 EL. T. 154 aforementioned could not be applied to dismiss the writ petition for two reasons (i) The amount of Rs.l1,00,188.90 collected from the appellant was not towards tax so as to say that the tax so collected was intended to be spent immediately and that the appellant cannot claim it long thereafter; the amount collected was towards difference of cost of arrack; and (ii) having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, and the representations made by the appellant to the State Government, and its filing writ petition within about two months after the State Government finally rejected its representation, it cannot be said that the delay was such so as to dismiss the writ petition. 18. Further the amount of Rs.11,00,188.90 was not paid voluntarily by the appellant, but was paid to the respondent under protest in compliance of the condition imposed for grant of renewal of the distillery licence to the appellant. The said amount was with the State Government without authority in law. 18. Further the amount of Rs.11,00,188.90 was not paid voluntarily by the appellant, but was paid to the respondent under protest in compliance of the condition imposed for grant of renewal of the distillery licence to the appellant. The said amount was with the State Government without authority in law. On the face of it, refusal of the respondents to refund the said amount was clearly unjust, particularly so when the amount of differential cost of price of arrack was not recovered from the similarly placed parties, and having regard to the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.297 of 1980 aforementioned. Added to this the State Government could not take technical plea so as to deny the just claim of the appellant for refund of the amount, and the State Government, having not collected the differential cost of arrack from others, could have fairly offered refund of the amount to the appellant without expecting the appellant to approach this Court for that matter. Hence the appellant is entitled to have refund of the said sum of Rs.11,00,1890. The dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge, as already stated above, was only on the ground of delay and laches. Otherwise, the writ petition was entitled to succeed for the very reasons for which the Writ Petition No. 13200 of 1989 was allowed by the learned single Judge under the very common order. No other point arises for consideration. 19. In the normal course the appellant would have been entitled for interest also on the said amount of Rs.11,00,1890. Since the appellant also took time in making the claim for refund and in approaching this Court by filing the writ petition, we think it is not appropriate to award it interest on the said amount. 20. In the result, for the reasons, stated, we pass the following order: (i). This writ appeal is partly allowed; (ii).The order of the learned single Judge dated 14. 1990 made in W.P.No.13203 of 1989 is setaside, and the writ petition 13203 of 1989 is partly allowed; (iii). The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.11,00,188.90 to the appellant. The interest claimed by the appellant on the said amount is refused. This writ appeal is partly allowed; (ii).The order of the learned single Judge dated 14. 1990 made in W.P.No.13203 of 1989 is setaside, and the writ petition 13203 of 1989 is partly allowed; (iii). The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.11,00,188.90 to the appellant. The interest claimed by the appellant on the said amount is refused. The learned senior counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments also submitted that the appellant is agreeable for adjustment of the refund amount towards its excise arrears or payments due by it to the Government if the appellant succeeds in the appeal. It is open to the respondents to make either refund of the amount as ordered above, or to adjust the same amount towards the amount that may be due or payable by me appellant.