Raj Kumar Agrawala v. State of Odisha

W.P.(C) No.14135 OF 2017

1. 02.04.2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has paid certain additional royalty, which was enhanced with effect from 15.12.2016. It is contended that enhancement of royalty with retrospective effect has already been set aside by judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch of cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment. It is contended that despite the petitioner having made several representation for refund of the royalty amount, the same is being deducted from the running bills/bills of the petitioner and the same has not been refunded to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

1. Taking into consideration the order of this court passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013, dated 18.03.2015, this Court has observed as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx 3. On receipt of such certificates, the same may be produced before the respective Tahasildars and the Tahasildars shall in turn treat the certificates as applications for refund of royalty. However, we make it clear that the petitioners who have ongoing projects with the State, may, instead of seeking refund of any excess royalty paid, may opt for allowing adjustment of the refundable amount against any ongoing projects that they may be undertaking.”

1. Further, it is seen that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in Akuli Charan Das v. State of Orissa and others and