Disposed

Sarbeswar Khanda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2022WP(C)/22820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking a refund of amounts deposited by the L-1 bidder, who was not allowed to operate the quarry due to pending litigation. The Court held that the refund claim must be pursued before the appropriate authority under the terms of the lease agreement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum under the DTCN/Agreement.

Sarbeswar Khanda Vs State of Odisha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 22820 of 2022

¶3

Sarbeswar Khanda

¶4

….. Petitioner Mr. G. Satapathy, Adv.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

….. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Nayak, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

09.09.2022

¶12

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

01.

¶14

Heard Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶15

Essentially, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties for refund of the amount deposited by him, for which he has already filed application under Annexure-7.

¶16

Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the opposite parties, the petitioner participated in the bid and became successful. Thereafter, in terms of the lease, the petitioner was required to deposit certain amount, which he complied with. But allotment of lease in favour of the petitioner was challenged by one Hrushikesh Mohapatra before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6846 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2016. Thereafter, when the petitioner wanted to operate the source, he was not allowed by the authority to do so. It is contended that the petitioner having not been allowed to operate the quarry, is to get back his amount which he had deposited. But the same has not been refunded by the authority.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that if the petitioner seeks for refund of his amount, which is due and admissible in terms of the DTCN/Agreement, he has to approach the authority concerned in terms of the condition stipulated in the DTCN/Agreement. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has not been allowed to operate the quarry because of pendency of litigation, even if he was found L-1 bidder in the bid itself and, as such, the period was not extended any further. Therefore, whatever amount he has deposited, the benefit of refund of such amount can be considered by the authority taking into consideration the terms and conditions stipulated in the DTCN/Agreement.

¶20

In such view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum in terms of the DTCN/Agreement, which is applicable to him.

¶21

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶22

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

¶23

Ashok/Kishore

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Sarbeswar Khanda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarbeswar Khanda 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Purna Chandra Panda Vs State of Orissa

Gouri Kumar Pattnaik Vs Union of India

Mahesh Prasad Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Jayadev Padhi Vs State of Odisha