M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal Vs Union of India

1. The instant writ petition is at the behest of a mining lease holder claiming the refund of an excess amount deposited in the National Mineral Exploration and Development Trust (NMEDT).

¶17

Undisputedly, the period of lease expired by efflux of time on 31^st March, 2020 but despite the expiration thereof the excess amount, which the petitioner deposited has not been refunded. Several correspondences were made to the State Government but perceiving no response from their end, the instant writ petition came to be filed seeking a relief in the form of a refund of the said excess amount while the instant writ petition remained pending. We have invited the attention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Union of India and the State of Odisha respectively to ascertain as to whether there is any payment of excess amount as claimed by the petitioner.

¶20

In course of hearing, the respective counsel echoed that the excess payment has been made but were not ad idem on the liability to refund the said amount. According to learned AGA for the State, the moment the amount is deposited under the said head, it is immediately remitted to the Central State and therefore, the liability to refund the said amount ceases to exist on the State Government and if there is any genuinity to the claim, the refund shall have to be made by the Central Government. Learned DSGI took time to take instructions as the necessary data/relevant information relating to remittance of the said amount to the said fund maintained by the Central Government was lacking and a direction was passed by this Court to furnish such information to the learned DSGI. The said information was furnished by the learned AGA to the learned DSGI and after verification of the same, the learned DSGI appearing for the Central Government fairly submits that the excess amount has been remitted to the petitioner in its account.

¶21

According to learned DSGI, the moment the excess amount has been paid off, it forecloses all the adjudications to be made in the instant writ petition and, therefore, it can be dismissed on such score. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not concur with the submission of the opposite parties and invited the attention of the Court that apart from the said amount, the claim also relates to the payment of interest for unreasonable withholding of an excess amount is still the dissent percepts between the DSGI and the AGA on the liability to make the payment of any interest.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

At the outset, both the counsel are unison on the issue that there is no provision relating to the payment of interest and, therefore, the right which does not emanate from the statute, cannot be granted on mere asking.

¶24

We had an occasion to peruse Rule 49 of the Mineral (Other Than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, which postulates:

¶25

“ 49. Payment of interest .- The State Government may, without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Act or rules made thereunder, charge simple interest at the rate of 24% per annum on any rent, royalty or fee other than the fee payable under sub-rule (2) of rule 35 or other sum due to that Government under the Act or rules made thereunder or terms and conditions of any mineral concession from the sixtieth day of the expiry of the date fixed by that Government for payment of such royalty, rent, fee or other sum and until payment of such royalty, rent, fee or other sum is made.”

¶26

It is manifest from the bare reading of the language and the expressions employed in the above quoted provision that the State Government may charge a simple interest @ 12% per annum on any rent, royalty or fee other than the fee specified under sub-rule (2) of Rule 35 or other sum due to the State Government under the Act or the Rules to be reckoned from the date of expiry of the date of the liability till the actual payment is made. Though the said provision constitutes a charging provision yet the equitable principles can be gainfully applied

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

in relation to an unreasonable withholding of an amount by the authorities of the Government. The equity is not a one way traffic but has to be understood on the basis of the conduct, the act, the things done in course of the transactions and/or dealing with the rights of the parties and the one who seeks equity must approach the Court with clean hands. If the Government is empowered to charge the interest on a delayed payment, it would bring incongruity in the event, the excess amount is retained and/or withheld by the Government without any reasonable cause as the peculiar facts emerged from the stand of the parties that both the State and the Central Government were in the state of dissent on the remittance of the said amount to a respective fund. Once the dark cloud is removed and the liability is crystallized, it would be too harsh on the litigant not to be given the interest over and above the sum withheld by the authorities. Since both the Central Government and the State Government are at variance on the liability to make the payment of the interest, we leave it open to them to resolve such dispute between themselves. What would be the proportion of the liability is to be ascertained and resolved by them on production of the relevant information and the data but equally it cannot absolve the liability to make the payment of any interest as the said excess amount remained unreasonably withheld and deprives the petitioner to use and utilize the usufructs therefrom. Since the principal amount has already been paid off to the petitioner, we therefore, direct the Central Government to pay the interest at the same rate as indicated in Rule 49 of the said Rules of 2016 after the date of expiration of the lease to the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be made within six weeks from the date of this order.

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

As indicated hereinabove, it is open to the Central Government, who is now saddled with the liability to make the payment on account of any interest to recover any amount which the State Government is otherwise liable on account of such interest.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction.

¶32

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S.K. Jena/Secy.

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 19-Mar-2026 17:03:19

¶38

Page 5 of 5

M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debarchan Meghani Vs State of Odisha

Tahera Bibi Vs Sebati Bhoi

M/S Ghanshyam Misra and Sons P,Ltd Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Odisha

Radha Mohan Patra Vs the Additional Ct and GST Officer,Mayurbhanj Circle

Narottam Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sagar Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha