Disposed

M/S.Maa Chandi Stone Crushing v. the Govt.of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Oct 2020WP(C)/17841/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought refund of excess royalty deducted at enhanced rates. The Supreme Court in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction held such royalty could be adjusted against ongoing projects or refunded via Tahasildar. This Court directed the Divisional Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation expeditiously, considering prior orders and recommendations, and pass a reasoned order within

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Divisional Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation on excess royalty refund, considering the recommendation and prior orders, and to pass a reasoned order within t

M/S.Maa Chandi Stone Crushing Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.17841 of 2020

¶2

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶3

01.10.2020

¶4

Mr. S.K. Das : For the Petitioner Mr. M.S. Sahoo, A.G.A. : For the State-Opp. Parties

¶5

ORDER

¶6

The petitioner, which is a partnership firm represented through its partner Ajaya Agarwal, has filed this writ petition to declare the royalty collected on the minor minerals at the increased rate effective from 01.09.2010 as ultra vires to the Odisha Mines Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and further to refund the royalty already deducted from the bills.

¶7

The petitioner paid certain additional royalty, which was enhanced with effect from 01.09.2010 and 01.09.2013. Pursuant to the work order issued by the East Coast Railway, Khurda Division, Khurda, the petitioner had already successfully executed the work, which was issued on 26.10.2015 for supply and delivery in stacks of 75,000 cum of hard stone machine crushed ballast of 50mm size of approved quality and loading the same into any type of railway wagons at Rajathgarh (RJGR) of Khurda Road Division.

¶8

During course of execution of the work under Annexure-1 and after its successful completion, the amount towards royalty was deducted from every running account bills at a rate of Rs.99/- per cum and Rs.130/- per cum respectively kept in the account of opposite party no.5-Senior

¶9

-2-

¶10

Divisional Engineer (Coordinate), East Coast Railway, Khurda-Road Division, Khurda.

¶11

Challenging such imposition of deduction of royalty at the enhanced rate, a batch of writ petitions were filed and after considering the respective cases of the petitioner therein, this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 vide order dated 18.03.2015 observed as follows:

¶12

“xxx 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.”

¶13

This Court also issued direction to the authority concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to refund of excess royalty already deducted from their bills. After disposal of the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14907 of 2017 was filed by one M/s. APSS-SIPS(JV) with similar prayer for quashing of the imposition and deduction of additional royalty and this Court vide order dated 20.08.2019 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition taking into consideration the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 ( M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha and others ) and Akuli Charan Das v. State of Orissa and othes and batch of cases , 2006 (Supp.-II) OLR 672 directing that in the event the petitioner, with regard to the grievance made in the said writ petition, filed a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority attaching running account bills along with certified copy of the order annexing therewith the orders of this Court passed in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction

¶14

-3-

¶15

Pvt. Ltd. and Akuli Charan Das mentioned supra, the same would be considered and decided by the authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of filing such representation.

¶16

Against the order passed in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), State preferred S.L.P. bearing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20951 of 2015 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2015. Thereby, the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction Pvt. Ltd. mentioned supra has reached its finality.

¶17

In view of such position, the petitioner claims that it is entitled to get refund of royalty amount, which was deducted in the enhanced rate, in view of the order/judgment of this Court rendered in the cases of M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Akuli Charan Das mentioned supra. As such, considering the same, the Divisional Engineer, (Central), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, Khurda has already recommended the case of the petitioner to the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, Jajpur on 28.10.2019 vide Annexure-9, but no decision has been taken on the same till date.

¶18

Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that raising the contentions, which have been raised in this writ petition for refund of excess royalty deducted from the running bills, the petitioner has already filed representation before the authority vide Annexure-8 dated 30.07.2019, which is still pending for consideration. Therefore, while deciding the same, the recommendation made in Annexure-9 should be taken into consideration by the authority and accordingly dispose of such representation as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

-4-

¶20

Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that since the petitioner has made a limited nature of grievance, State has no objection. Rather, the grievance of the petitioner has to be considered by the opposite party-authority as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the petitioner has made a limited nature of grievance, this Court disposes of this writ directing opposite party no.5-Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordinate), East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, Khurda to consider the grievance of the petitioner as at Annexure-8 taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Akuli Charan Das mentioned supra, as well as the recommendation made in Annexure-9 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶23

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶24

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶25

Alok/Ashok

M/S.Maa Chandi Stone Crushing v. the Govt.of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maa Chandi Stone Crushing v. the Govt.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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Orient Construction Vs Sagar Mirdha

Kailash Ch.Moharana Vs State

Jyoti Prakash Sarangi Vs Registrar Civil Court Jajpur

Krupasindhu Padhan Vs State of Odisha

Duryodhan Panda Vs State of Odisha

Subhasree Mohanty Vs Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda