Nirakar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nirakar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), with a declaration that the amount together with penalty had already been deposited on 22nd June, 2020 as per the receipt (Annexure-2); the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 raising a fresh demand of Rs.1,18,750/- as outstanding royalty was sustainable despite the petitioner having already deposited the royalty together with penalty with the department on 22nd June, 2020.

Court's answer

Once the amount had already been deposited with the concerned department on 22nd June, 2020, there was no justification in raising a fresh demand of the same amount through the demand notice dated 19th August, 2023; the authority cannot make the demand afresh despite payment of the dues.

Ratio / Principle

The demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 reflected the royalty amount (which, according to the department, was due and payable) and did not reflect the penalty payable by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

In view of the deposit of the amount along with the penalty, no prejudice was caused to the Government and such amount cannot be demanded again as if it is due to the Government.ratio¶5
Operative direction: the demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside, it being made clear that the said amount had already been deposited on 22nd June, 2020 as shown in the receipt issued by the Tahasildar, Soro (Annexure-2).ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Nirakar Panda v. State of Odisha and another, W.P.(C) No. 21000 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 15.12.2025; Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Hon'ble Mr Justice M.S. Raman). Challenge to a demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 issued by the Tahasildar, Soro demanding Rs.1,18,750/- as an outstanding due, with a warning that failure to pay within ten days would lead to a certificate case under the Odisha Public Demands Recovery (OPDR) Act, 1962. The Court found that the notice reflected only the royalty claimed by the department and not the penalty; the royalty together with penalty (total Rs.1,43,750/-) had already been deposited on 22nd June, 2020, as shown by the Tahasildar's receipt (Annexure-2). Holding that once the dues stand deposited there is no justification for raising the demand afresh, that no prejudice is caused to the Government, and that the amount cannot be demanded again as if due to it, the Court quashed and set aside the demand notice dated 19th August, 2023 (Annexure-7) and disposed of the writ petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 21000 of 2025

Nirakar Panda

…. Petitioner

Mr. Bibeka Nanda Bhol, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

…. Opposite Parties

Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

15.12.2025

1. It is really a sordid state of affairs that there is no collation

of the documents at the behest of the Executives. The lapses and

gaps on the part of the administrative action is apparent and evident in the instant case.

2. The challenge is made to a demand notice dated 19^th August, 2023 issued by the Tahasildar, Soro for an outstanding due to the extent of Rs.1,18,750/- and calling upon the petitioner to pay

off the same within ten days, otherwise the matter would be recommended for initiation of a certificate case under the provision

Page 1 of 3

of the Odisha Public Demands Recovery (OPDR) Act, 1962 for realization of the same.

3. The petitioner made a representation to the authority with the categorical assertion that the said amount along with penalty has already been paid prior in time and the said amount cannot be demanded again. Annexure-2 to the instant writ petition is the receipt showing a deposit of Rs.1,43,750/- (the breakup thereof appears Rs.1,18,750/- as royalty and Rs.25,000/- as penalty).

4. The demand notice dated 19^th August, 2023 does not reflect the penalty to be paid by the petitioner but the amount of royalty, which according to the department, is due and payable by the petitioner. Once the amount has already been deposited with the concerned department on 22^nd June, 2020, we do not find any justification in raising the demand of the said amount by causing the demand notice dated 19^th August, 2023. We appreciate the agony and anguish shown by the petitioner that despite the payment of the dues as demanded, the authority cannot make the demand afresh.

5. In view of the fact that the amount has already been deposited along with the penalty, there is no prejudice caused to the

Page 2 of 3

Government and such amount cannot be demanded again as if it is

due to the Government.

6. Accordingly, the demand notice dated 19^th August, 2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that the said amount has already been deposited on 22^nd June, 2020 by the petitioner as shown in the receipt issued by the Tahasildar, Soro (Annexure-2).

7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2025 17:37:47

Page 3 of 3