Allowed

Siddharth Shankar Patra @ Siddharth Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/5135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking a refund of application fees collected under a quashed sale notice for IMFL 'Off' shops. The appellant argued that despite not intervening in the related earlier quashing petition, they should receive the same refund as successful interveners. The Court granted the refund and fixed the disposal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to refund the collected application fees to the petitioners within eight weeks from the order date.

Siddharth Shankar Patra @ Siddharth Patra Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5135 of 2022

¶3

Siddharth Shankar Patra @ …. Petitioners Siddharth Patra and others

¶4

Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 08.08.2022

This matter is taken up by a separate notice.

¶13

The prayer in the present writ petition is for refund of application fees collected from the Petitioners pursuant to the sale notice dated 23^rd November 2020, which stood quashed by judgment dated 12^th January, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.32947 of 2020. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶14

“27. For all the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2020 cancelling the Petitioner’s license in respect of five IMFL ‘Off’ Shops is hereby quashed. The Intervention Application is not entertained. It is clarified that all consequential actions taken by the Opposite Parties including settling the licences in respect of three IMFL ‘OFF’ Shops in favour of the Interveners cannot be sustained in law. If any money has been collected by the

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Opposite Parties from any of the interveners, it shall be forthwith returned by the Opposite Parties to them. The Intervention Application is accordingly disposed of.”

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners points out that although the present Petitioners were not interveners, they should not be discriminated against only because they did not seek to intervene in the above writ petition. He states that they are on the same footing as the interveners in the above writ petition.

¶18

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties refers to the counter affidavit filed therein and in particular to para-3 thereof, which extracts clause No. xi (b) of the sale notice, which states that the application fees collected up to Rs.1,00,000/- is non-refundable. Mr. Mohanty seeks to draw a distinction between the interveners in the above writ petition and the present Petitioners by contending that the interveners had succeeded in the lottery whereas the present Petitioners merely participated in the lottery.

¶19

In the context of refund having been ordered by this Court in the above judgment dated 12^th January 2021, no distinction can be drawn between the interveners in the said writ petition and the present Petitioners. The fact remains that the sale notice itself stood quashed and, therefore any amount collected pursuant thereto had to be refunded. Merely because the present Petitioners did not choose to be intervene at that stage

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

cannot be a ground to deny them the similar relief as prayed for.

¶22

Consequently, the Court directs that the amount collected from the present Petitioners as application fees be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Siddharth Shankar Patra @ Siddharth Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Shankar Patra @ Siddharth Patra 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

Manas Pradhan Vs State

Jaydev Behera Vs State

Jayadev Behera Vs State

State Vs Nabakrushna Padhi

Eparimadhav Rao Vs Addl.Dist Magistrat

Borso Boni Raita@Ber Vs Punama Sabar