Orissa High Court
Subhasini Jena & Others vs State Of Orissa And Others on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18323 of 2021
Subhasini Jena & others .... Petitioners
Mr.A.K.Patra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.D.K.Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
03.08.2021
Order No.
02. 1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for refund of
application fees collected from the Petitioners pursuant to the sale
notice dated 23rd November, 2020, which stood quashed by
judgment dated 12th January, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.32947 of 2020. The operative portion of the
said judgment reads as under:
"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 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."
2. 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.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties
refers to the counter affidavit 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.
4. In the context of refund having been ordered by this Court in the
above judgment dated 12th 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 cannot be a ground to deny them the
similar relief as prayed for.
5. 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.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
7. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
