Orissa High Court
Hemanta Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 10 April, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NOS. 17979 OF 2024 & 18001 OF 2023
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
****
Hemanta Kumar Jena .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Subha Bikash Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
& JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
---------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 10.04.2025
---------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
letter dated 3rd May, 2023 (Annexure-6) issued by the
Tahasildar, Dharmasala directing him to deposit the additional
charges of Rs.(130/-+ 295/-). The Petitioner also assails the
demand notice dated 20th June, 2024 (Annexure-1) issued by the
Mining Officer-in-charge, Jajpur pursuant to the letter under
Annexure-6.
// 2 //
3. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is
the successful bidder in respect of Bichhakhandi Black Stone
Quarry No.8 held on 11th February, 2022 as per the rate quoted
by him, i.e. Rs.(130/-+65/-). Thereafter, the Tahasildar,
Dharmasala on scrutiny of the case record ascertained that the
additional charges has been substantially enhanced by the
District Level Committee to Rs.(130/-+295/-) at the time of
grant of environmental clearance based on the instruction
received from the office of the Additional Chief Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Letter No.
11111 dated 7th April, 2022. Accordingly, the Petitioner was
directed to deposit the additional charges of Rs.(130/-+295/-)
instead of Rs.(130/-+65/-). He further submits that after the
Petitioner was adjudged as the successful bidder and lease
agreement was executed, the direction for payment of additional
charges of Rs.(130/-+295/-) is not permissible under law. It is
further submitted that law is no more res integra on the issue.
This Court in the case of Sandeep Chandak -v- State of Odisha
and others in W.P.(C) No.27096 of 2024 and a batch of writ
petitions has already settled the law vide its judgment dated 7th
February, 2025, the relevant portion of which is quoted
hereunder:
"6. At this stage Mr. Panda submits, under challenge in
the writ petitions are the demand notices. Petitioners have
not challenged office order dated 16th April, 2022
constituting a District Level Committee (DLC) to render
advisory assistance to the Collector for fixation of
minimum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) and additional
charges for minor minerals sources. We see this is an
administrative order for the purpose of competent
authority to obtain advice from the DLC. Fact is, the
// 3 //
competent authority proceeded to invite bids before
obtaining advice from the DLC. Subsequent thereto the
administration may have received the advice from the
DLC indicating there must be enhancement in the
additional charges to be paid by lessees. However, the
question before us is whether in an auction indicating a
reserved value, bids made and accepted, there can be
enhancement thereafter. There is nothing provided in the
rules to show that in event in future the competent
authority obtained advice from a DLC or for that matter
any other person or body, correspondingly, effect of the
advice is to be imposed on lessees, already executed and
running.
7. Mr. Panda points out from condition-4 under part-IV
in the lease deed that lessees are to pay royalty in
advance and differential amount if any on computation
shall be paid by the end of first fortnight. The demand is
covered by this condition. The condition is reproduced
below.
"4. The lessee shall pay royalty in advance and
differential amount, if any on Computation shall be
paid by the end of the first fortnight of each half
yearly period during the subsistence of the lease."
Mr. Palit submits, the differential amount can only refer
to the amount of royalty paid in advance. In event of short
payment, the differential amount is to be paid within end
of first fortnight. It does not allow for imposition of
enhanced additional charge. We accept the submission
that it relates to payment of advance royalty."
He, therefore, submits that both the order under Annexures-6
and demand notice under Annexure-1 are not sustainable in the
eye of law and are liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that imposition of additional charges after settlement of
the lease has already been declared as illegal by this Court in
Sandeep Chandak (supra).
// 4 //
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment in Sandeep Chandak (supra) and a batch
of writ petitions.
6. The issue involved in the said batch of writ petitions was
with regard to imposition of enhanced component in additional
charges from Rs.129/- to Rs.295/- after execution of the lease
agreement. This Court discussing the fact and law involved in
the said batch of writ petitions held as above. Thus, we have no
hesitation to hold that imposition of enhanced additional charges
of Rs.(130/-+295/-) on the Petitioner is not sustainable in the eye
of law and is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the letter
under Annexure-6 directing the Petitioner to pay additional
charges of Rs.(130/-+295/-) instead of Rs.(130/-+65/-) and
demand notice issued under Annexure-1 pursuant to the letter
under Annexure-6 are quashed.
7. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to the
cost.
9. Interim order dated 21st June, 2023 passed in I.A.
No.8303 of 2023 (arising out of W.P.(C) No.18001 of 2023)
stands vacated.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Date: 11-Apr-2025 18:00:49 th
Dated the 10 April, 2025/bks
