Atanu Kumar Paul vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12974 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     W.P.(C) No.35680 of 2021

              Atanu Kumar Paul                       ....           Petitioner
                Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. K. Das,
                                                                   Advocate
                                         -versus-
              State of Odisha and others             ....     Opposite Parties
                                                Smt. Suman Pattanayak, AGA



                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

20.12.2021 Order No.

01. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the present writ petition being similar to W.P.(C) No.14485 of 2019, the same may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 20th August, 2019 passed therein.

2. Smt. S. Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State does not object to the same.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties and perused the record.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has paid certain additional royalty which was enhanced with effect from 1st September, 2013. It is contended that enhancement of royalty has already been set aside by judgment and order dated 18th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and the batch of cases. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the said judgment. It is contended that despite the Petitioner having made several representations for refund of the royalty amount deducted from the bills of the Petitioner, the same has not been refunded to the Petitioner.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending.

6. With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in case the Petitioner with regard to the grievance made in this petition files a comprehensive representation along with certified copy of this order annexing therewith the judgment of this Court dated 18th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and the batch of cases, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation. It will be open for the authority to consider even the period of limitation while considering the representation. It is further directed that in case the Petitioner is

found to be entitled for refund of any amount, the same shall be refunded to him within three weeks from the date of passing of the order.

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

8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(A. K. Mohapatra) Judge M. Panda