Orissa High Court
Amita Choudhury vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 20 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 10595 of 2022
Amita Choudhury ..... Petitioner
Mr. Subhankar Rout, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Patnaik, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
20.05.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. S. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. T. Patnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction
to opposite party no.4 for refund of excess amount of royalty of
Rs.5,70,281/- in respect of the work "Construction of H.L. Bridge
over river Mahendratanaya at 5/400 km on PWD road to Bagasala
Agarkhandi in the district of Gajapati" in terms of the direction
issued by opposite parties no.3 under Annexure-5.
4. Mr. S. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No. 35664 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated
27.01.2021 under Annexure-3 disposed of the said writ petition
directing the opposite party-authority to consider the
representation of the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11830 of 2013, which was disposed of
on 18th March, 2015 and the ratio decided in Akuli Charan Das
vrs. State of Orissa, 2006 (Supp.II) OLR 672. The said order was
duly communicated to the opposite parties-State. In compliance
thereof, opposite party no.3-Superintending Engineer, Rural
Works Division, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati communicated to the
petitioner with calculation sheet for refund of excess deduction of
royalty amount of Rs. 5,70,281/- for the work in question, vide
Annexure-5 dated 17.01.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner filed
representation to opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi,
Gajapati for refund of excess deduction of royalty pertaining to the
work as mentioned above, but no action was taken. Opposite
party no.3, vide letter dated 17.01.2022, instructed to opposite
party no.4 to refund the excess royalty amount of Rs. 5,70,281/-.
But, the Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati, instead of
complying the same, delayed the matter. Though the petitioner
requested opposite party no.4 to refund the excess royalty amount
on 17.01.2022, but he did not respond. Therefore, the petitioner
has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
5. Mr. T. Patnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel
contended that since the excess royalty amount has already been
determined by the authority, there is no justification to keep the
amount pending with the Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the
considered view that the excess amount of royalty received by
opposite party no.4 should be refunded to the petitioner as per
calculation sheet prepared by opposite party no.3 in compliance of
the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.35664 of 2020.
Therefore, this Court directs opposite party no.4-Tahasildar,
Paralakhemundi, Gajapati to determine the amount and refund to
the petitioner the excess royalty amount deducted as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks, otherwise it
may amount to violation of order dated 27.01.2021 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 35664 of 2020.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok/Puspa (SAVITRI RATHO)
JUDGE
