Disposed

Union of India v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Mar 2023WP(C)/16922/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an amendment to a Writ Petition challenging a royalty demand notice issued to Railways. Finding the dispute involved complex calculations regarding minor minerals used for construction, the Court directed the parties to resolve the matter amicably within three months through a joint meeting to reconcile deposited amounts.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of by directing parties to resolve the royalty dispute within three months; amendment to petition allowed.

Union of India Vs State of Odisha — Public Procurement and Tenders | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16922 of 2015

¶3

Union of India and another …. Petitioners Mr.Bimbisar Das, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr.N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶9

Order No.

¶10

¶11

M.C. NO.19704 OF 2015 :

¶12

ORDER 28.03.2023

¶13

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners-Union of India as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶15

This Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking amendment of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the amendment sought for are clarificatory in nature and if the same is allowed, the same will not change the nature and character of the dispute involved in the present Writ Petition. He further submitted that by way of an amendment, the Petitioner seeks to introduce the breakup of the amount which has already been indicated in the Writ Petition.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection to the amendment sought for.

¶19

Accordingly the amendment is allowed. Consolidated Writ Petition be filed forthwith.

¶20

The Misc.Case is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.16922 of 2015

¶22

Heard Mr.Sanjib Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.N.K.Praharaj, learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition and the documents annexed thereto.

¶23

The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶24

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Potion call for the LCR and issue notice to the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the order dated 17.06.2015 passed in OPDR Revision Case No.03/2009 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack. under Annexure-1 and also the demand notice issued by the Collector, Koraput, vide letter No.2292/01.06.2015. Bench dated 02.09.2015 for payment of Rs.45,14,82,643.47 under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed and if they fail to show cause/show insufficient cause then issue a Writ of Certiorari by quashing the impugned order under Annexure-1 and issue a writ of mandamus by quashing the Demand Notice under Annexure-2 and also issue any other Writ/Writs and/or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper;

¶25

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the six certificate cases (1/02 to 4/02 and 1/03 & 2/03) filed earlier against Railway and it is also prayed that Government of Odisha may please be directed to refund Rs.50.72 Crores paid earlier by Railway along with interest (at the rate as adopted by Govt. of Odisha while raising the demand on Railway) over and above Rs.1.35 Crores already paid towards the Royalty amount as per the calculation of the Railway and also issue any other Writ/Writs and/or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper;”

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Petitioner that the dispute involved in the present Writ Petition arises out of a dispute between the Railways and the State Government authority with regard to payment of royalty in respect of minor minerals used by the Railways for construction of railway line from Koraput to Raygada sector. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that with the permission of the State Government, the Railway authorities used the minor minerals for construction of railway track. However, later on the State Government demanded royalty on the minerals used by the Railway authorities over the minor minerals used in the construction work.

¶29

Since the dispute arose with regard to payment of royalty by the Railways to the State Government, particularly with regard to a demand made by the Collector, Rayagada and Collector, Koraput demanding payment of royalty to the tune of Rs.14,89,46,596.75, the Railways approached this Court by filing O.J.C.No.1961 of 1991. This Court vide judgment dated 22.04.1994 decided that the State is not entitled to levy any royalty and cess in respect of earth and rock cut spoils excavated by the Railway from the acquired land and utilized by them for the purpose of construction of the railway line.

¶30

The aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 22.04.1994 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Appeal No.8850 of 1995 by the State Government. Initially the operation of the judgment was stayed vide an interim order dated 29.04.1995. Later on the Special Leave to Appeal No.8850 of 1995 was converted to Civil Appeal No.2235 of 1996 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.11.2000 directed that the Railway Administration would be bound to pay royalty chargeable under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rule for the minerals extracted and used by it and accordingly the impugned judgment dated 22.04.1994 was set aside. Although the Railways filed a Review Petition bearing

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

Review Petition No.702 of 2001, the same was dismissed on 26.07.2001. Finally, the Collector, Rayagada and Collector, Koraput raised a demand against the Railways for payment of royalty.

¶33

Thereafter, the Railways challenged the rate of royalty used in calculation for different minor minerals and the quantum of minerals used in construction work. While the matter stood thus, the Railways again filed another Writ Petition bearing OJC No.3401 of 2002 before this Court challenging the initiation of Certificate Cases against the railways. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.10.2006 with a direction to pay the balance amount and to file revision against the order of R.D.C.(Southern Division), if they are so advised. In the meantime, the Petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.5 crores in obedience to this Court’s order. Thereafter, the railways again approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order dated 11.10.2006. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP at the stage of admission with a direction to the Petitioners to file a revision before the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, a Revision Petition was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue bearing OPDR Revision Case Nos.2 to 5 of 2009. The aforesaid Revision cases were disposed of by a common order dated 17.06.2015 by dismissing the Revision Petition filed under Section 61 of the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962. Finally, the Collector, Koraput issued a demand notice dated 02.09.2015 demanding a total sum of Rs.45,14,82,643.47. Challenging the said order dated 02.09.2015 under Annexure-2 the Petitioners have again approached this court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶34

At this juncture, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Railway authority has already deposited the entire amount before the State Government authority. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since they have deposited some amount, the authorities be directed to

¶35

// 5 //

¶36

recalculate the royalty dues and deduct the exact amount deposited by the Railways and the balance amount be returned to the Petitioner. 15. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that there is no dispute with regard to eligibility. It is further submitted that since the Railway authority has used the minor minerals for the purpose of construction of railway line, they are under the legal obligation to pay the royalty. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the action of the Member, Board of Revenue in issuing the demand notice to the Railways. He further contended that in the event the Railway authorities have deposited the money before the competent authority of the State Government, then he has no objection if a direction is given to the Opposite Parties to calculate the amount payable by the Railway authorities towards the royalty and the same be deducted from the amount deposited by the authority and the balance amount be returned to the Railway authorities within a stipulated period of time.

¶37

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party No.1 to resolve the matter amicably by convening a joint meeting with a prior notice to all the parties concerned. In the event the joint meeting is convened, the parties shall make every endeavour to resolve the dispute amicably. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioners have deposited the amount as submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners then the State authorities shall do well to calculate the eligibility towards royalty and deduct the same from the amount deposited by the Petitioner and

¶38

// 6 //

¶39

after adjusting the legal dues the balance amount if any shall be returned to the Petitioners forthwith. It is further directed that the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to resolve the dispute amicably and make every endeavour to settle the dispute within a period of three months from today. Further, it is made clear that in the event the Petitioners are aggrieved by any decision of the Opposite Parties then, it is open for them to approach this Court again by filing appropriate application.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶42

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶43

RKS

Union of India v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Fci, New Delhi

Nanda Kishore Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ratnakar Neti Vs Supdt. of Police, Sundargarh

Biswabandita Swain Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bbsr

Union of India Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha