In the facts of the presentcase, the respondents do not and cannot dispute that they have to refund the seized amount. Further, considerable delay and failure to make the payment constitutes and is inseparable from the cause of action as the delay and negligence is on the part of the authorities. The appellant does not seek setting-aside or quashing of an adverse order, no third-party rights are involved and the respondents’ exfacie would not suffer due to a change of position. Prayer for compliance of a valid and legal order passed cannot be equated with prayers made in repeated representations seeking a change of position. Acquiescence is not apposite to patience as acquiescence is not just standing-by, and refers to assent on being aware of the violation or reflects conduct showing waiver. Laches is thiscasewould require sheer negligence of the nature and type which would render it unjust and unfair to grant relief. When, the liability to pay Rs. 4,99,900/- is acknowledged and accepted, then to deny relief by directing payment in terms of the order under Section 132(5) of the Act would be unjust, unfair and inequitable. Statute mandates the respondents to make payment. To be fair to the counsel for the respondents, it was conceded that an appropriate order may be passed to do justice.