Amit Raj vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10165 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P. (C) No.29054 of 2021

              Amit Raj                                     ....            Petitioner
                                                        Mr. A. K. Patra, Advocate
                                             -versus-
              State of Odisha and others                   ....     Opposite Parties
                                                  Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY


                                         ORDER

Order No. 23.09.2021

01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode by a separate notice.

2. 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

// 2 //

from any of the interveners, it shall be forthwith returned by the Opposite Parties to them. The Intervention Application is accordingly disposed of."

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that although the present Petitioner was not intervener, he should not be discriminated against only because he did not seek to intervene in the above writ petition. He states that the Petitioner is on the same footing as the interveners in the above writ petition.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties refers to the counter affidavit filed therein 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 Petitioner by contending that the interveners had succeeded in the lottery whereas the present Petitioner 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 Petitioner. 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 Petitioner did not choose to be intervene at that stage cannot be a ground to deny him the similar relief as prayed for.

// 3 //

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

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

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

( B.P. Routray) Judge

M. Panda