Orissa High Court
Sarada Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 10 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18970 of 2012
Sarada Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd. . .... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjib K. Dash, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa and Ors. .... Opp. Parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 10.01.2022
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
2. The petitioner, which was engaged with the contract work to
execute the construction and maintenance of rural roads in
package No.OR-12-75/VIII( Addl.) in the district of
Jagatsinghpur under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
(PMGSY) Scheme, has filed this writ petition seeking direction
to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 for reimbursement of
enhanced royalty amount which has been deducted from its bill
in respect of the aforesaid work.
3. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner
company is executing the construction and maintenance of rural
roads in package No.OR-12-75/VIII (Addl.) under Pradhan
Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana for the year 2008-2009 in the
district of Jagatsinghpur and accordingly, agreement dated
01.10.2009 was executed. During course of execution, opposite
// 2 //
party no.3 had been making periodic payments with respect to
22 nos. of intermittent pending bills on the running account in
favour of the petitioner. The work executed by the petitioner
involves use of several minor minerals like sand, earth, morum,
boulder, metal, chips, bajri etc. for which royalty is leviable
under schedule-II of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004. The stipulations contained in the general conditions of
contract obligates opposite party no.3 to deduct royalty from
the payment made to the petitioner in the form of 'IPC' as per
the scheduled rate upon the exact quantity of minor minerals
utilized in execution of the project. After entering into
agreement, the petitioner-company went on executing the work
and accordingly opposite party no.3 prepared the running
account bill. From the said bill, the petitioner noticed that
opposite party no.3 deducted royalty on minor mineral at a
much higher rate than what has been prescribed under OMMC
Rules, which was brought to the notice of opposite party no.3
by the petitioner and also objected such deduction of royalty at
enhanced rate. But opposite party no.3, while justifying the
deduction, stated that there was revision of rate of royalty and,
therefore, as per the aforesaid clause, the petitioner-company is
required to pay royalty at the revised rate.
4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that such deduction of royalty at higher rate is
contrary to the provisions of law though the Second Proviso to
Rule-28(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2004 empowers deduction of
such royalty. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner is
// 3 //
covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Akuli
Charan Das v. State of Orissa, AIR 2007 Ori. 97.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that
deduction of royalty has been done in accordance with law and,
as such, the petitioner-company is not entitled to get such
benefit. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in
the eye of law.
6. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that since the question for payment of royalty has
already been considered by this Court in Akuli Charan Das
mentioned supra, the claim of the petitioner may be considered
in the light of the said judgment.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms
of the judgment passed in Akuli Charan Das (supra), and
accordingly we direct that in the event the petitioner, with
regard to the grievance made in this petition, files a
comprehensive representation before appropriate authority
attaching running account bills along with copy of this order
annexing therewith the judgment of this Court in the case of
Akuli Charan Das (supra) within four weeks hence, the same
shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned by a
reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of four months from the date of
filing of such representation.
8. 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
the petitioner within six weeks from the date of passing of the
// 4 //
order or adjust the refundable amount against any
ongoing/completed projects that they may be undertaking if the
petitioner may opt for.
9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of Covid-19 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 Advocate
concerned with his/her seal, in the manner prescribed vide
Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 and Court's
Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
BJ
