Kunal Kishore Das vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 11088 Ori

                                       1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P (C) No. 11407 of 2022

Kunal Kishore Das                    .....                               Petitioner
                                                        Mr. A. Kanungo, Advocate


                                     Vs.
Union of India & Ors..               .....                         Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. S.S. Kashyap, CGC
                                                                      (O.Ps.1& 3)
                                                          Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
                                                                       (O.Ps.2&4)


             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                            ORDER

11.09.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. A. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 & 3 and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties no.2 & 4.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.03.2022 under Annexure-10 passed in Revision Application Nos.22/95/2018/RC-1 and 22/96/2018/RC- 1, by which opposite party no.3-Additional Secretary & Revisional Authority has dismissed the said revision petition filed by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the amount and further to issue direction to the authority to revoke

the termination under Annexure-5 on payment of compensation amount of Rs.2,72,79,111.43 with interest within a stipulated period.

4. Mr. A. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition because of dismissal of R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1 vide order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Revisional Authority in not depositing the dues of Rs. 2,72,79,111.43 within the time stipulated in the affidavit of undertaking.

5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties no.2 & 4 contended that notice under Rule-12(10) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Rules, 2016 was issued to the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 2,72,79,111.43. Against such demand, the petitioner preferred revision vide R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1 before the Revisional Authority. In the said proceeding, the petitioner had filed an affidavit of undertaking stating therein that he will make payment of Rs. 2,72,79,111.43. Due to non-compliance of the same, the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 11.03.2022 dismissed R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Revisional Authority in dismissing the revision application of the petitioner.

6. Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 & 3 contended that since the petitioner has not complied with the order of the Revisional Authority, the writ petition should be dismissed.

7. As it appears, the apex Court, vide judgment and order

dated 02.08.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014, has directed that compensation under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act should be paid by 31.12.2017. On that basis notice under Rule-12(10) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Rules, 2016 was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.04.2018 raising a demand of Rs.2,72,79,111.43 towards stock, or, in failure to deliver such stock, on or before 28.02.2018 to make payment of the said amount, together with interest calculated @ 14% per annum. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before the Revisional Authority, vide R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1. In the said proceeding, the petitioner filed an affidavit of undertaking, paragraph-4 whereof reads as follows:

"4. In light of the above-mentioned circumstance Revisionist/Petitioner seeks to place on record and submit an undertaking for payment of said amount of Rs.2,72,79,111.43 assessed towards the undisposed stock along with interest calculated at the rate of 14 per cent per annum in terms of the said notice 05.04.2018, on or before the date of 28th day of March 2022. I the under signed deponent-

Revisionist/Petitioner undertake to make payment to the State of Odisha without fail and hereby express my bonafide to comply with my liability. I humbly pray to consider my request and undertaking in the interest of justice. I am state that I am bound by my undertaking given hereby and strictly adhere to the same."

8. In view of candid admission of the petitioner in the above noted paragraph that he will make payment of Rs.2,72,79,111.43 assessed towards the undisposed stock along with interest calculated at the rate of 14 per cent per annum in terms of the notice dated 05.04.2018, on or before the date of 28th day of March 2022, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to comply with the same in letter and spirit. The same having not been complied

with, the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 11.03.2022 dismissed R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Revisional Authority in R.A. No.22/(95) & (96)/2018-RC-1.

9. Thereby, this Court directs the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,72,79,111.43, as per his affidavit of undertaking, within a period of fifteen days, failing which it will carry interest @ 18% for the demand raised for delay in payment.

10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Alok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Sep-2023 10:38:51