Orissa High Court
Prafulla Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.30414 OF 2022
Prafulla Kumar Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.11.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 21.03.2022 under Annexure-10, by which the
Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi North Division-1, Jagatpur,
Cuttack, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of
additional royalty amount being deducted from his running bills.
4. Mr. S. Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that as per the provisions contained in Section 64-A of
Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and also in view of judgment dated
18.03.2015passed by this Court in M/s. Rohit Kumar Das
Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.11830 of
2013) under Annexure-2, which has been confirmed, vide order
dated 31.07.2015 passed by the apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.20951 of 2015, the petitioner is entitled to get the
royalty, as claimed in the writ petition. It is further contended that
claiming for refund of royalty, the petitioner had approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6212 of 2019, which was disposed of
vide order dated 25.03.2019 and in compliance of the said order,
the Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi North Division No.1,
Jagatpur has rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of
additional royalty amount being deducted from his running bills.
5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the
petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Rather, he
has suppressed material facts, for which he is not entitled to get
any relief. It is also contended that pursuant to direction of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.6212 of 2019, the petitioner was to file a
comprehensive representation attaching running bills along with
certified copy of the order annexing therewith the judgment of
this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and the decision
in Akul Charan Das before the authority, but he has not filed the
same. Therefore, in absence of any materials, the authority has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of additional royalty
amount. Thereby, the order so passed by the Superintending
Engineer, Mahanadi North Division No.1, Jagatpur is well
justified, which does not warrant interference of this Court.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel
appearing for the parties and after going through the records, it
appears that the petitioner claims for refund of additional royalty,
being deducted from his running bills, as per Section 64-A of Sale
of Goods Act, 1930. But, Section 64-A of Sale of Goods Act,
1930 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in view of the
fact that the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 itself
prescribes for charge of royalty and refund of excess royalty
amount. In any case, for refund of royalty, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6212 of 2019, which
has been disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2019 with following
order:
"6. In that view of the matter, we direct that in the event the
petitioner, with regard to the grievance made in this petition, files a
comprehensive representation attaching running account bills along
with certified copy of this order annexing therewith the judgment of
this Court dated 18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and
batch of cases and the decision in Akuli Charan Das (supra) within
four weeks hence, the same shall be considered and decided 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. It is further directed that tin case the petitioner is
found to be entitled for refund of any amount, the same shall be
refunded to him within three weeks from the date of passing of the
order or adjust the refundable amount against any ongoing/completed
projects that they may be undertaking if the petitioner may opt for".
The aforementioned paragraph clearly indicates that the
petitioner was to file a comprehensive representation before the
authority attaching running account bills along with certified copy
of this order annexing therewith the judgment of this Court dated
18.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch and
the decision in Akuli Charan Das (supra) within four weeks
hence, the same was to be considered and decided 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. In compliance thereof, the petitioner filed an
application on 22.04.2019 under Annexure-6 before the authority,
but he has not filed comprehensive representation attaching the
running bills and the copy of the order dated 18.03.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) No.11830 of 2013 and batch and the decision in Akuli
Charan Das. The enclosures attached to the application are as
follows:
"Enclosures:-
(3) Order No-02 dated 25.03.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa
passed in respect of W.P.(C) No-6212 of 2019.
(4) Beneficiary Details".
Thereby, the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.6212 of 2019 has not been complied with by the
petitioner in letter and spirit. This fact has been suppressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing before this
Court on the legality and propriety of Annexure-10, the order
passed by the Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi North Division-
1, Jagatpur. More so, the Superintending Engineer, Mahanadi
North Division-1, Jagatpur has also passed the order in due
discharge of his duty.
7. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed
material facts, he is not entitled to get any relief, as claimed in the
writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and
the same is dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok (B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
