Disposed

Susanta Biswal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Mar 2021WP(C)/3713/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes retrospective imposition of DMF and additional charges. It directs the Tahasildar to rework the demand notice, charging DMF only pro-rata from Feb 6, 2016, and additional charges only for the extension period, adjusting for securities already deposited.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondent to rework demand notice charging DMF pro-rata for period after Feb 6, 2016 and additional charges for extension period, utilizing Rs.2 lakh deposit.

Susanta Biswal Vs State of Odisha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3713 of 2018

¶3

Susanta Biswal

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.A.Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr.D.K.Mohanty, A.G.A.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

26.03.2021

Order No.

The Petitioner questions the imposition of additional charges as well as charges due on account of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) retrospectively on the Petitioner.

¶15

The facts are in brief that on 29^th May, 2014 an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal (Opposite Party No.4) for the allotment of a sand sairat for a period of one year between 1^st April, 2014 to 31^st March, 2015 pursuant to an auction conducted under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (OMC Rules).

¶16

The case of the Petitioner is that he could not operate the sand sairat for one month and was constrained to file W.P.(C) No.16629 of 2014 in this Court. By an order dated 25^th November, 2014 of this Court, the Petitioner was permitted to operate the sand sairat for the rest of the period subject to getting the environmental clearance.

¶17

The Petitioner states that pursuant to the above order, he was allowed to operate the sand sairat from 24^th July, 2015 to 23^rd June, 2016 by way of an additional lease agreement.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

On 18^th August, 2015, the Government of Odisha notified Odisha District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2015. On 19^th July, 2016 the Petitioner made a representation to the Tahasildar seeking refund of the security deposit amount of Rs.5,03,376/-. On 26^th September, 2016 a demand was raised against the Petitioner for Rs.5,80,178/- towards outstanding dues of DMF and Rs.2,30,714/- towards additional charges.

¶20

Thereafter the present petition was filed 8^th March, 2018. Notice was issued on 14^th March, 2018 and the impugned demand notice was stayed subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with the Opposite Party No.4. Counsel for the Petitioner states that the said amount has since been deposited.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner relies on a recent judgment dated 17^th March, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3383 of 2018 (Ch.Venkateswaralu v. Union of India) where in similar circumstances this Court clarified, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries v. Union of India, (2017) 16 SCC 186, that the DMF collected prior to 6^th February, 2016 would be either refunded or adjusted, since any collection of such DMF prior to that date would be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court.

¶22

With the legal position not being in dispute, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.4, the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal will rework the impugned demand notice dated 26^th September, 2017 in so far as the DMF amount relatable to the period prior to 6^th February, 2016 is concerned. In other words, the DMF is to be charged only

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

pro-rata for the period subsequent thereto, till the conclusion of the lease period.

¶25

As regards, the additional charges, it is seen that since there was an additional lease agreement entered into to enable the Petitioner to operate the sand sairat from 24^th July, 2015 to 23^rd June, 2016. The additional charge also has to be pro-rata, that period and not relate to any prior period. While reworking the amount due, the Tahasildar shall take into account the sum of Rs.2 lakhs deposited by the Petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 14^th March, 2018.

¶26

The matter will now be placed before the Tahasildar on 26^th April, 2021 on which date the Petitioner will appear along with a certified copy of this order. The reworked demand will be communicated to the Petitioner by the Tahasildar not later than 10^th May, 2021. The Tahasildar shall also, by the same date, dispose of the Petitioner’s representation for refund of the security money and communicate such decision to him.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

An urgent certified copy of this order issued as per rules.

¶29

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶30

Chief Justice

¶31

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶32

C.R. Biswal/ B.K. Barik

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Susanta Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Biswal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibhuti Bhusana Moha Vs State and Ors.

Pramod Ku Agarwal Vs Chairman,Land

Pabitra Mohan Sahoo Vs State

M/S.Rashmi Motors Vs I.T.O.

Basanta Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha and Ors.

Birabar Das @ Dash Vs Odisha Administrative Tribunal,Cuttack