M/S. Pradeep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 13027 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No. 40210 of 2021



            M/s. Pradeep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd.       ....           Petitioner
                                           Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha and Others             ....    Opposite Parties
                               Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No. 23.12.2021

02. 1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for refund of application fees collected from the Petitioner 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."

3. Counsel for the Petitioner 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Consequently, the Court directs that the amount collected from the present Petitioner as application fees be refunded to it within a period of eight weeks from today.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge S.K. Jena/P.A.