Allowed

M/S.Abs Engineering and Developers v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC23 Dec 2019WP(C)/4510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning refund or adjustment of enhanced royalty paid retrospectively. Court directed petitioner to file comprehensive representation with bills and requisite judgments. Petition allowed; refund or adjustment directed if claim valid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file representation within four weeks to claim refund or adjustment of royalty; refund or adjustment to be processed expeditiously.

M/S.Abs Engineering and Developers Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 4510 of 2018

¶2

23.12.2019 Heard Mr. B.P. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

¶3

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 same has not been refunded to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶4

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:

¶5

“xxx xxx xxx

¶6

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

-2-

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

In that view of the matter, we direct that in the event the petitioner, with regard to the grievance made in this petition, files a comprehensive representation 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,

¶15

-3-

¶16

the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously 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 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 or adjust the refundable amount against any ongoing/ completed projects that they may be undertaking if the petitioner may opt for.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶18

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

¶19

.��..........�� ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶20

��.��.. ( K.R.Mohapatra ) Judge

¶21

SKJ

M/S.Abs Engineering and Developers v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Abs Engineering and Developers v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk.Abdul Mannan Vs Sk.Habibur Raheman

Sanyasi Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Dharanidhar Mishra Vs State and Ors.

Principal Commnr.of Income Tax Vs Orissa State Civil Supplies Coprn. Ltd.

Roy and Chartarjee Vs Union of India

Principal Commnr.of Income Tax Vs Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.