02. 10.05.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Ad
dl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has paid certain additi
onal royalty which was enhanced with effect from 1.9.2013. It is contended that enhancement of
royalty has already been set aside by judgment and order dated 18.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No
. 11830 of 2013 and batch of cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitio
ner would be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment. It is contended that despite the pe
titioner having made several representations for refund of the royalty amount deducted from th
e bills of the petitioner, the same has not been refunded to the petitioner.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that
no useful purpose would be served by calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ p
etition pending.
4. With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the dir
ection that in case the petitioner, with regard to the grievance made in this petition, files
a comprehensive representation along with certified copy of this order annexing therewith the
judgment of this Court dated 18.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11830 of 2013 and batch of cases,
the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously a
s possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representa
tion. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is found to be entitled for refund of
any amount, the same shall be refunded to him within three weeks from the date of passing of
the order.
