Brijesh Kumar, C.J.- This appeal by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and another has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20.8.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.3376 of 1995 (1996 (2) GLJ 525). The respondent Greater Guwahati United Motor Transport Association filed the writ petition praying for quashing the tender notices dated 20.3.95 (Annexure 5), 27.6.95 (Annexure 6) and 4.8.95 (Annexure-7) issued by the Commissioner of the appellant Corporation inviting tender for settlement of parking places within the city of Guwahati for the year 1995-96 on the ground that the said notices were issued without any authority of law. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order quashed the said notices and issued prohibitory orders restraining the respondents from realizing any parking fee or taxes with further direction to refund taxes collected in pursuance to the draft bye-laws. The learned Single Judge further ordered issuance of notice to Smti Indira Kalita to show cause as to why she shall not be prosecuted for having sworn a false affidavit regarding publication of the draft bye-laws in the Official Gazette. Being aggrieved thereby, the Corporation has preferred this appeal controvert the legality and validity of the impugned judgment. 2. During the course of arguments, Shri AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel, did not press the appeal so far it relates to the orders quashing the tender notices. His argument was confined to the orders relating to the refund of taxes collected and the direction given to the deponent Smti Indira Kalita to show cause for having sworn in false affidavit. 3. In view of the above, we would like to restrict our discussion to the points argued. Therefore, we take up the issue relating to the notice ordered to be issued to Smti Indira Kalita to show cause as to why she should not be prosecuted for swearing in false affidavit. Smti Kalita, an officer of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation submitted before the Court on oath that the draft bye-laws of the £ Corporation was notified in the Official Gazette. The relevant statement which has irked the learned Single Judge is quoted below : “10. That the deponent deny the correctness of the statements made in para 15 of the writ petition as they are false and baseless. The relevant statement which has irked the learned Single Judge is quoted below : “10. That the deponent deny the correctness of the statements made in para 15 of the writ petition as they are false and baseless. The petitioner has misconstrued the power vested on the GMC by the provisions of section 416 and 418 of the GMC Act by which empower the framing of bye-laws in matters relating to taxation. It is pertinent to mention herein that the bye-laws had been approved and notified in the Official Gazette and accordingly the provisions of section 144 has been duly complied with.” 4. It would appear from para 10 quoted above that the deponent Smti Indira Kalita submitted on oath that the bye-laws had been approved and notified in the Official Gazette. On scrutiny of the records we find that the State Govt had in fact approved the draft bye-laws, but the same was not notified in the Official Gazette. The approval of the State Govt was sought by letter dated 23.9.91 and it was communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt vide letter dated 30th June, 1992 (Annexure VIII). On 31.7.92, draft bye-laws was sent to the Superintendent of Govt Press for early publication in the Assam Gazette (Annexure IX). The Publisher, Assam Gazette, informed the Commissioner vide letter dated 7.8.92 (Annexure X) that steps were being taken for publication of the bye-laws in the Gazette. But the appellant Corporation could not produce any document to show that it was in fact published. It was only on 12.8.96 i.e. after delivery of the judgment by the learned Single Judge it was published in the Assam Gazette calling for objection, if any. There is no doubt that the statement a made by Smti Kalita that the draft bye-laws was published in the Official Gazette was not a statement of fact. However, the affidavit sworn in by her on 23.7.96 shows that it was made not on personal knowledge but being matters of record. The correspondence referred to above might have misled Smti Kalita to believe that the process of publication of the draft bye-laws was complete. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that she made the above statement being actuated by any personal motive or other consideration. Therefore, it can be presumed that the statement has been made on misreading of records. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that she made the above statement being actuated by any personal motive or other consideration. Therefore, it can be presumed that the statement has been made on misreading of records. This lapse on the part of Smti Kalita is undoubtedly very serious. But, since no personal motive is attributable to her for making the above statement, we are of the opinion that it would be too harsh and extremely punitive to direct her prosecution. Considering the circumstances, we conclude that it would suffice if she is let-off with a note of caution not to repeat such mistake in future. 5. On the question of refund of fee or toll collected as parking fees from the members of the petitioner Association, Shri Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel, argued that the Corporation is passing through acute financial crisis and even it is not in a position to clear off the salaries to the employees regularly. This defence in our opinion cannot form the basis for rejection of the prayer of refund of the fees. Refund was ordered in view of the fact that the fees or tolls were collected without any valid authority of law. We are also convinced that the amount collected without any sanction of law should be refunded. But in the given circumstances of the case, the Court cannot lose sight of the element of public interest ingrained in the process. The fees/tolls were collected for parking and £ stoppage of vehicles at various points by the lessees appointed by the Corporation. Although the said collection was without any authority of law, it is obvious that the members of the Association in return also received service by way of parking of vehicles at different places specified by the Corporation. Although realised without any sanction of law, yet the fees/tolls were collected in lieu of some service rendered. It is not the case of the petitioner Association that they have J had received nothing in return for the payment made. The Corporation decided to collect the same in order to augment its' revenue for larger interest of the residents of the city of Guwahati. That apart, the lessees also incurred expenditure for the purpose of collection of fees/tolls. A threadbare arithmetical calculation cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction to determine the amount to be refunded. The Corporation decided to collect the same in order to augment its' revenue for larger interest of the residents of the city of Guwahati. That apart, the lessees also incurred expenditure for the purpose of collection of fees/tolls. A threadbare arithmetical calculation cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction to determine the amount to be refunded. It may be further added here that the fees/tolls collected for parking of vehicles cannot also be treated at par with excess payment of taxes made under any statute. Situated thus, rules of natural justice and the element of public interest do not inspire this Court to maintain the order of refund. The decision of the appellant Corporation to collect fees or tolls from vehicles plying within the greater city of Guwahati was within the framework of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act. No doubt, there remained deficiency in the procedure adopted to give a legal touch to the decision. This inadequacy to our mind shall not in any way blind-fold the course of justice. This Court cannot say 'yes' to the order of refund being completely oblivious to the circumstances as above. The distinction lies in the various factors of which services rendered is predominant. We, therefore, propose to reverse the impugned order of refund. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Smti Indira Kalita is let-off with a note of caution not to commit such mistake in future. We also set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for refund of the fees/tolls collected. 7. No costs.