Allowed

Rama Ch.Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Aug 2019WP(C)/4184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged deduction of enhanced retrospective royalty paid after a judgment set aside the enhancement. Court directed parties to file comprehensive representations for reasoned consideration within four months and allowed the writ petitions with an interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to file comprehensive representations with bills and certified copies of prior orders within four weeks; refund or adjustment to be decided via speaking order within four months.

Rama Ch.Mahakud Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 4184 of 2017

¶2

13.08.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have 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 petitioners states that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment. It is contended that despite the petitioners having made several representations for refund of the royalty amount, the same is being deducted from the running bills/bills of the petitioners and the same has not been refunded to the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶5

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:

¶6

“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.”

¶7

¶8

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 batch of cases , 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR 672. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶9

“21. Under the circumstances, the writ applications, where agreements have been signed before 31.8.2004 i.e., the date of promulgation of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, are disposed of with the following directions:

¶10

(1) It is hereby declared that the petitioners are justified in their claim for reimbursement on the basis of the revised rate stipulated in 2004 Rules.

¶11

(2) The petitioners may revise their bills to incorporate such enhanced claim on account of revised royalty.

¶12

(3) The State is to effect reimbursement/payment towards royalty subject to the petitioners furnishing evidence of payment of such royalty.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.”

¶14

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition will be governed by the above decisions of the Court.

¶15

In that view of the matter, we direct that in the event the petitioners, with regard to the grievance made in these petitions, file comprehensive representations attaching running account bills along with certified copy of this order annexing therewith the judgment of this Court dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch of cases and the decision in Akuli Charan Das (supra) within four weeks hence, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously

¶16

¶17

as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. It is further directed that in case the petitioners are found to be entitled for refund of any amount, the same shall be refunded to them within three weeks from the date of passing of the order or adjust the refundable amount against any ongoing/completed projects that they may be undertaking if the petitioners may opt for.

¶18

The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶19

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶20

……..…………………… K.R. MOHAPATRA (JUDGE)

¶21

Rama Ch.Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Ch.Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bajwa Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd.

Asutosh Mishra Vs Union of India

Subash Chandra Panda Vs Union of India.

Sushila Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Pankajini Dwibedi Vs State of Odisha

P.Subas Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha