Orissa High Court
Tapan Kumar Nanda vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2940 of 2022
Tapan Kumar Nanda .... Petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Patra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK
Order No. ORDER
08.08.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up 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 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 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 he is 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 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.
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
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda
