Orissa High Court
Pradeepta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41013 of 2021
Pradeepta Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Deepankar Varadwaj, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 02.02.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
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."
// 2 //
3. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that although the
present Petitioner was not intervener, he should not be
discriminated against only because he does not seek to
intervene in the above writ petition. He states that he is on the
same footing as the intervener 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 intervener in the above writ petition
and the present Petitioner by contending that the intervener
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 does 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.
8. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at
par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice
No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Court's Notice
No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021 and Court's Office Order
circulated vide Memo Nos.514 and 515 dated 7th January,
2022.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
KC Bisoi
