M/S. Parida And Palei vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4945 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No. 24854 of 2021
M/s. Parida and Palei                    .....                               Petitioner
Minerals, Keonjhar
                                                            Mr. C. Pattnaik, Advocate
                                  Vs.
Union of India and others                .....                         Opposite Parties
                                                      Mr. B. Dash, Sr. Panel Counsel,
                                                                Central Government

                CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                   Mr. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                                ORDER

21.09.2022

Order No.

03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and Mr. B. Dash, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for the opposite party-Union of India.

3. Let a copy of the writ petition be served each on learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India, appearing for the opposite party-Union of India by tomorrow (22.09.2022) to enable him to file counter affidavit.

4. Mr. C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner because of amendment of Section-10 A (1) of MMDR Act, 2015 cannot sustain in the eye of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in State of Rajasthan v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (Civil Writ Petition No.13915 of 2019, disposed of on13.11.2019).

5. On examining the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the fact of the said case in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) is totally different to the fact of the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

6. Mr. C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to satisfy this Court on that score after the ensuing Puja Holidays, as he has to attend the Sudhhi Kriya of his father, who died in the meantime.

7. On his request, put up this matter after the ensuing Puja Holidays.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Alok/Subhasmita