Biswamohan Srichandan Ray vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11776 Ori

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                    W.P.(C) No.30383 of 2023

               Biswamohan Srichandan Ray                ....         Petitioner
                                                    Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                        -versus-
               State of Odisha and others               ....        Opposite
                                                                    Parties
                                                          Mr. D. Mund, AGA

                         CORAM:
                         DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                         MR JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                           ORDER

27.09.2023 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The prayer in the present writ petition is for refund of

application fees collected from the Petitioner pursuant to the

sale notice dated 23rd November, 2020, which stood quashed by

judgment dated 12th January, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.32947 of 2020. The operative portion of the

said judgment reads as under:

"27. For all the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2020 cancelling the Petitioner's license in respect of five IMFL 'Off' Shops is hereby quashed. The Intervention Application is not entertained. It is clarified that all consequential actions taken by the Opposite Parties including settling the licences in respect of three IMFL 'OFF' Shops in favour of the Interveners cannot be sustained in law. If any money has been collected by the Opposite Parties from any of the

interveners, it shall be forthwith returned by the Opposite Parties to them. The Intervention Application is accordingly disposed of."

3. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that although the

present Petitioner was not intervener, he should not be

discriminated against only because he did not seek to intervene

in the above writ petition. He states that he is on the same

footing as the interveners in the above writ petition.

4. Mr. Mund, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite

Parties refers to the counter affidavit and in particular to para-3

thereof, which extracts clause No. xi (b) of the sale notice,

which states that the application fees collected up to

Rs.4,00,000/- is non-refundable. Mr. Mund seeks to draw a

distinction between the interveners in the above writ petition

and the present Petitioner by contending that the interveners

had succeeded in the lottery whereas the present Petitioner

merely participated in the lottery.

5. In the context of refund having been ordered by this Court in

the above judgment dated 12th January, 2021, no distinction can

be drawn between the interveners in the said writ petition and

the present Petitioner. The fact remains that the sale notice itself

stood quashed and, therefore any amount collected pursuant

thereto had to be refunded. Merely because the present

Petitioner did not choose to be intervene at that stage cannot be

a ground to deny him the similar relief as prayed for.

6. Consequently, the Court directs that the amount collected

from the present Petitioner as application fees be refunded to

him within a period of eight weeks from today.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dr.S.K.Panigrahi) Judge

(G.Satapathy) Judge Kishore

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 27-Sep-2023 18:38:02