Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel vs State Of Odisha And Others ....... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11292 Ori

Orissa High Court

Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel vs State Of Odisha And Others ....... ... on 15 December, 2025

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK


                 W.P.(C) No.827 of 2024
             (In the matter of an application under
       Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)



Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel
India Ltd., Jagatsinghpur               .......     Petitioner


                                 -Versus-



State of Odisha and others               .......    Opposite Parties


        Advocate for the parties


For Petitioner                         : Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate
                                         assisted by
                                         Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate

For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC

For Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8 : None


                     ----------------------------


    CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                     ----------------------------
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing: 16.09.2025              Date of Judgment: 15.12.2025
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The writ petition has been preferred assailing the

Order dated 09.02.2023, so also Order dated 06.07.2023

passed by the Certificate Officer (Opposite Party No. 5) in

Certificate Case No.01 of 2023, vide which the arrear

electricity duty amounting to ₹40,49,15,126/- was held to be

recoverable from the Certificate Debtor, i.e., the Petitioner-

Company, for alleged non-payment of dues pertaining to

electricity duty relating to its Power Plant at

Bijayachandrapur, Paradeep. That apart, the Certificate of

Public Demand dated 09.02.2023, Demand Notice dated

20.07.2023 and Demand Notice dated 04.11.2023, and other

consequential Demand Notices issued thereafter are also

under challenge. The Petitioner also seeks for a direction to

the Opposite Parties to consider and decide its representation

dated 10.07.2023, seeking waiver from further proceedings.

2. The factual matrix involved in the present lis, as

detailed in the writ petition, is that the electricity duty is

allegedly outstanding against the Petitioner, particularly for

the period prior to 29.01.2021, following the acquisition of the

generating assets of M/s Essar Power Orissa Ltd., shortly

hereinafter "EPOL", by the Petitioner-Company under the

provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002, shortly, "SARFAESI Act". The Petitioner has no liability

towards any electricity duty prior to its acquisition of the

assets on 29.01.2021. The Opposite Parties' claim is both

legally unsustainable and procedurally flawed. The generating

asset, previously owned by Opposite Party No. 6 (EPOL), was

auctioned via notice dated 03.12.2020. The Petitioner became

the successful bidder and was issued a Sale Certificate on

29.01.2021. Therefore, all electricity dues prior to 29.01.2021

were the liability of EPOL, not of the Petitioner.

2.1. The Principal Chief Electrical Inspector (OP No.2)

wrote to EPOL (OP No.6), not the Petitioner, calling upon it to

make good the outstanding dues for the pre-sale period, thus

confirming that EPOL was the liable entity. The impugned

actions of the Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Jagatsinghpur

(OP No- 5) reflect a biased approach and a failure to apply

judicial mind to the facts and the law, rendering the actions

arbitrary. Opposite Party No.5 erroneously presumed the

Petitioner's admission of liability under the Odisha Electricity

Duty Act, shortly, the "OED Act", by relying on initial attempt

of the Opposite Party No. 6 to apply for a One-Time

Settlement (OTS) under the Scheme of Opposite Party No.1,

which was alleged to be made by the Petitioner. However, the

application for OTS by the Opposite Party No.6 was rejected

for non-compliance of certain conditions. Further, the

Petitioner never admitted any liability for the period prior to

29.01.2021. The Opposite Party No. 5 also failed to provide

the Petitioner an opportunity to present a defense against the

alleged liability, which amounts to violation of the principles

of natural justice. The reasoning given by Opposite Party No.

5 that the Petitioner failed to settle the certificate amount,

after being given opportunities, is based on a false premise

that the Petitioner was liable, and such reasoning is

unsustainable.

2.2. Further, Opposite Party No. 5's reliance on Section

5A of the OED Act is misplaced, as the acquisition of the

generating asset by the Petitioner did not involve a voluntary

transfer of assets from EPOL. The SARFAESI Act provides for

a statutory sale and confers a clear and unencumbered title

to the Purchaser, free of any encumbrances, including

electricity duty obligations. Section 5A of the OED Act applies

only to voluntary sales, not statutory sales by virtue of

auction under SARFAESI and hence, it is not applicable in

this case. The Opposite Parties themselves acknowledged in

communications dated 01.07.2021, 09.07.2021 and

30.12.2021 that the liability pertains to EPOL. Vide letter

dated 30.09.2021, so also letter dated 30.12.2021, the

Superintending Engineer-cum-Electrical Inspector (OP No.4)

accepted that Rs. 13.80 crore was paid by the Petitioner as

interest on 23.11.2021 and that Rs. 28.49 crore (part of the

Rs. 42.71 crore demand) and electricity duty for generation

from 30.01.2021 to 31.08.2021, which also includes interest

@18% thereon, is attributable to EPOL. Further, the

Petitioner, who is the CDr, is having a different CIN No., i.e.,

U27100GJ1976FLC013787, than EPOL, whose CIN No. is

U31101GJ2005PLC081701.

2.3. Moreover, the Opposite Parties' claim for the

period prior to 07.07.2020 is also barred by limitation, as per

the statutory framework governing the imposition of

Electricity Duty under the OED Act. The impugned order,

passed on 06.07.2023, seeks to recover amounts that are

beyond the permissible period for claims and as such, they

stand extinguished in law.

2.4. A Resolution Plan was implemented under the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 16.12.2019 vide

judgment of the Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors

of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta,

reported in (2020) 8 SCC 531, which effectively extinguished

any claims towards electricity duty for the period up to

16.12.2019 and a "No Due Certificate" dated 29.01.2021 was

issued. The claims for dues arising from electricity

consumption during that period have been settled and abated

and hence, under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the Opposite

Parties cannot now seek to revive such extinguished claims.

3. Two separate Counter Affidavits have been filed by

the Opposite Parties. In the Counter filed by the Opposite

Party Nos.1 to 4, it has been stated that the writ petition is

not maintainable, as the Petitioner failed to exhaust the

statutory remedy of appeal under Section 60(c) of the Odisha

Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, shortly, "OPDR Act",

before approaching this Court. It is the stand of Opposite

Party Nos.1 to 4 that, under Section 5A(1) of the Odisha

Electricity Duty Act, 1961, both the Transferor (EPOL) and

Transferee (AMNS India Ltd.) are jointly liable for electricity

duty, irrespective of whether such liability was determined

prior to or after the transfer, and that the SARFAESI auction

documents expressly required the successful bidder to bear

statutory liabilities, if discovered later. It is further stand of

the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 that, despite repeated demand

notices, the Petitioner failed to clear arrears and had initially

agreed to an OTS proposal. However, it failed to honour it, so

also neglected to file the petition denying liability under

Section 8 of the OPDR Act within the prescribed period of 30

days.

It is also the stand of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4

that the Petitioner's claim that the liability stood extinguished

under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is misconceived,

asserting that the IBC proceedings related to Essar Steel Ltd.,

not EPOL, and that the auction did not absolve the Petitioner

from statutory dues. It is further mentioned that all actions

taken were lawful, as due opportunities were given at every

stage, and that the impugned demand notices and orders do

not violate natural justice.

4. Additionally, the Opposite Party No.5 (The

Certificate Officer) has filed a Counter Affidavit stating that,

the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, and has

been filed suppressing material facts to evade lawful dues. It

is stated that Certificate Case No.01/2023 was validly

initiated under Section 3 of the OPDR Act on the basis of a

requisition for recovery of ₹40,49,15,126/- towards arrear

electricity duty up to December, 2022. Notice under Section 6

of the OPDR Act was issued to the Petitioner directing it to file

a denial petition within 30 days. During proceedings, both

parties indicated willingness to pursue OTS and were granted

time. However, on the next date they remained absent. Based

on a communication from the Electrical Inspector that the

Petitioner had applied for OTS and was required to deposit

10% of dues but did not do so, and since no petition denying

liability was filed, the Certificate Officer presumed admission

of liability and confirmed the Certificate under Section 9 of

the OPDR Act. The Petitioner filed a denial petition after a

delay of over eight months, which is far beyond the statutory

one-month period. However, no steps for execution have been

taken under Section 17 of the OPDR Act.

5. The Petitioner, in the Rejoinder Affidavit, apart

from reiterating the facts and grounds urged in the writ

petition, has categorically denied all the allegations of

Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. It has been highlighted that the

Opposite Parties themselves, through letters dated

01.07.2021, 09.07.2021 and 30.12.2021, acknowledged that

all the electricity duty, prior to 29.01.2021, is recoverable only

from EPOL, which had applied under the OTS Scheme. It has

been stated that, treating it as one entity with EPOL is legally

untenable, as it purchased only generating assets and did

not assume EPOL's past statutory liabilities. It is the stand of

the Petitioner that the impugned Order has been passed

without supplying the Certificate and without considering its

Objections. The Petitioner has denied having ever applied for

OTS and that the Certificate Officer wrongly presumed its

willingness to settle. It is the further stand of the Petitioner

that it was denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the

liability, computations, legal basis of such demand and that

the proceeding to be without jurisdiction, in absence of any

privity of contract between the Petitioner and EPOL to the

said effect. The demands are also asserted to be barred for

any period prior to 07.07.2020. Additionally, it is the stand of

the Petitioner in the Rejoinder, as to the Counter filed by

Opposite Party No. 5, that the Petitioner has only acquired the

generating assets, not the entire business or liabilities of

EPOL. Consequently, the entire proceeding under the OPDR

Act is stated to be without jurisdiction and not sustainable in

law particularly, when the Petitioner has obtained a 'No Dues

Certificate' from Essar Power (Orissa) Ltd on 29.01.2021 vide

Annexure-11, conclusively demonstrating that there were no

outstanding dues.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that, Opposite Party No.6 had established a power

generating plant at Paradip supplying electricity solely to the

Petitioner for its captive consumption. After Opposite Party

No.6 defaulted on its loans, the Secured Creditors invoked the

SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner was subjected to a

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 02.08.2017.

Pursuant to the public announcement under Section 15 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no claim was filed by

the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 before the Committee of Creditors.

6.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, relying

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Committee of

Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. (supra), further

submitted that the approved resolution plan attained finality

as, all claims, which were not submitted before the Resolution

Professional, stand extinguished upon approval of the

resolution plan. Accordingly, all alleged dues, including

electricity duty prior to implementation of the plan on

16.12.2019, stood extinguished by operation of law. The

Petitioner has also obtained "No Dues Certificate" dated

29.01.2021 vide Annexure-11 from EPOL asserting that it has

paid the entire dues post 16.12.2019.

6.2. To substantiate his submission that the public

demand is unsustainable, learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner relied on the relevant observations made in Essar

Steel India Ltd. (supra), particularly regarding finality of

claims and the principle that the successful resolution

applicant cannot be faced with "undecided" claims after

approval of the Resolution Plan. Further reliance was also

placed on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in

Corporation Bank v. Dr. Jayesh Kumar Jha, 2019 SCC

OnLine Cal 2279, wherein it has been held that the Auction

Purchaser cannot be fastened with undisclosed statutory

dues when the Secured Creditor failed to disclose

encumbrances prior to sale.

6.3. So far as delay in filing the Petition denying

liability, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that though the Petitioner-Company filed a petition denying

liability under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, the same was not

entertained due to delay, and the Certificate Officer confirmed

the certificate and proceeded to realize alleged dues for an

undisclosed and even time-barred period. It was urged that

the delay occurred owing to the ongoing settlement process of

the Opposite Party No.6. In absence of any bar, Sections 4 to

24 of the Limitation Act apply to OPDR proceedings by virtue

of Section 29 of the Limitation Act.

6.4. Relying on the judgment in Sesh Nath Singh v.

Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-op Bank Ltd., reported in AIR

2021 SC 2637, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that, even if no application for condonation of delay

was filed along with the petition denying liability, the learned

Certificate Officer, in view of the reason detailed in the

petition, ought to have considered the stand of the Petitioner

that neither it is the Certificate Debtor nor is liable to pay the

alleged dues of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.

6.5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that, since all demands up to 16.12.2019 stood

extinguished by operation of law and no dues survive

thereafter, no purpose would be served by directing

consideration of the petition denying liability under Section 8

of the OPDR Act. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel for

Petitioner submitted that the demand being per-se

unsustainable, the writ petition be allowed and Annexures 1

to 5 be quashed.

7. Per Contra, Learned Counsel for the Opposite

Parties, drawing attention of the Court to Section 5-A1 of the

Odisha Electricity Duty Act, 1961 submitted that, if a person,

who is liable to pay electricity duty, transfers his business or

property, both the Transferor and Transferee are jointly and

severally responsible for paying the electricity duty and

interest, regardless of whether it was determined before or

after the transfer. In the present case, the Opposite Party

No.6 had outstanding statutory electricity duty dues. Upon its

assets being sold under the SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner

purchased the secured assets on "as is where is", "whatever

there is" and "no recourse" basis, expressly agreeing to bear

all statutory liabilities. Further, the sale notice so also the

sale certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner clearly

enumerated that the Purchaser Company shall pay all the

statutory dues and liabilities of the Defaulter Company.

7.1. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties further

submitted that, arrear electricity duty of Rs. 28.49 crores

(provisional) remained outstanding against O.P. No.6. On

failure of payment, Certificate Case No.1 of 2023 was rightly

initiated for recovery of Rs.40,49,15,126/- under the OPDR

Act. Further, the Petitioner's reliance on the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is misplaced, as the purchase was

not under the IBC 2016 framework but under the SARFAESI

Act. M/s Essar Power (Orissa) Ltd is a distinct and

independent entity from Essar Steel India Ltd. Moreover, the

Petitioner, having repeatedly sought time before the

Certificate Officer and having applied for OTS, has admitted

the dues, leaving no doubt about its liability to pay the

outstanding Electricity Duty.

7.2. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties further

submitted that, the Petitioner filed its petition denying liability

on 04.11.2023, which is far beyond 30 days of the statutory

period prescribed under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, without

filing any formal petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

or explaining the delay. Limitation provisions under OPDR Act

are not empty formalities and cannot be casually overlooked.

The Certificate Officer, therefore, has rightly rejected the

petition, as barred by limitation, consistent with the Scheme

of the OPDR Act.

7.3. So far as maintainability of the writ petition,

learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that,

since the OPDR Act provides an efficacious appellate remedy

under Section 60(c), the rejection of Section 8 Petition is

appealable and the writ petition is not maintainable.

7.4. To substantiate his submissions, learned Counsel

for the Opposite Parties relied on the Judgments of the

Supreme Court in Telangana State Southern Power

Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Srigdhaa Beverages, (2020) 6 SCC

404) so also K.C. Ninan v. Kerala SEB, (2023) 14 SCC 431,

wherein it was held that, in an auction sale under the

SARFAESI Act, conducted on 'as is where is' basis, with

specific mention of outstanding statutory dues, including

electricity dues, the Purchaser is deemed to have notice of

such dues and is bound to satisfy them. The Court

emphasized that the Purchaser must exercise due diligence

and cannot shift liability for such dues to the Seller or

Authorized Officer.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts on record and

submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, the

following points emerge to be dealt/answered in the present

writ petition.

1. In view of the alternative remedy of Appeal

available under Section 60(c) of the OPDR Act,

whether the writ petition is maintainable?

2. In an OPDR proceeding, whether the Certificate

Officer has power to condone the delay and consider

the petition denying liability filed under Section 8(1) of

the OPDR Act beyond the statutory period of 30 days?

3. Whether a petition denying liability filed beyond

the statutory period of 30 days, without any

application for condonation of delay, can be

considered by the Certificate Officer?

4. Whether the impugned orders passed by the

Certificate Officer deserve interference?

9. So far as Point No.1, it is pertinent to mention

here that at the stage of admission, such a point being raised

by this Court regarding maintainability of the writ petition,

the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner made a

submission before this Court regarding failure on the part of

the Certificate Officer to exercise its power to condone the

delay and non-consideration of petition denying liability filed

under Section 8 of the OPDR Act on merit. Paragraph Nos.3

and 4 of the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by this Court,

being relevant, are reproduced below.

"3. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the Petitioner , drawing attention of this Court to the rejection order dated 06.07.2023, as at Annexure-3, submits, though the Petitioner appeared before the Certificate Officer and filed petition denying liability but the same was rejected on the technical ground that the

petition denying liability has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

4. A query being made by this Court as to applicability of Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to OPDR proceedings, Mr. Dash, relying on the provisions under Section-64 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, shortly, "The Act, 1962" as to applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so also the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(C) No. 1179 of 2015 and the judgment of the apex Court reported in (2021) 7 SCC 313 (Sesh Nath & Another v, Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co- operative Bank Ltd. & another) submits, in view of the said legal provisions as well as settled position of law, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, being applicable to the OPDR proceeding, the Certificate Officer ought to have dealt with and disposed of the petition denying liability of the Petitioner filed under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, 1962 by condoning the delay, instead of rejecting the same on technical ground that the same is bared by limitation."

9.1. That apart, because of the allegations made in the

writ petition regarding procedural flaws and violation of

principles of natural justice before passing the impugned

orders, this Court, vide order dated 30.09.2024, directed the

learned State Counsel to produce the original records in

Certificate Case No.01/2023. On being so directed, ultimately,

the original records in Certificate Case No.01/2023 were

produced in a sealed cover on 26.08.2025.

9.2. On perusal of the L.C.R., it is ascertained that on

the first date fixed, i.e., 23.03.2023, an authorized person

namely, Sri S. Nanda, on behalf of the Petitioner -Certificate

Debtor appeared before the learned Certificate Officer. It was

submitted in writing vide letter dated 22.03.2023 that though

notice issued in Form-3 under Section 6 of the OPDR Act was

received by the Certificate Debtor, but without the certificate,

for which, he was unable to file petition denying liability, as

required under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, and a request was

made to provide the certificate and the relevant documents

enabling him to comply and take necessary steps in terms of

Section 8 of the OPDR Act. Contents of the said letter, being

relevant, are extracted below:

"Date:22.03.2023 To The Collector cum Certificate Officer, Jagatsinghpur, P.S. Town Dist.-Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

Ref: Notice pertaining to Certificate Case No.01/2023 dated 09.02.2023

Dear Mam, We are in receipt of the captioned Notice pertaining to Certificate Case No.01/2023 dated 09.02.2023 ("Notice"), which was received by us on 01.03.2023. We note that the Notice (presumably under Section 6 of the Odisha Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 ("OPDR Act") has been issued to the Company informing that your good offices have received a Certificate under the OPDR Act against the Company for an amount of INR 40,49,15,126/- ("Alleged Liability"). By way of the Notice, your goodself has called upon us to exercise our rights under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, to challenge the Alleged Liability.

Your goodself is aware that Section 6 of the OPDR Act requires that the Certificate is to be served along with the Notice on the alleged certificate- debtor. However, the Notice issued to us does not enclose the Certificate. In the absence of such Certificate being made available to the Company, the requirements of Section 6 of the OPDR Act are not met and the timelines for invoking Section 8 of the OPDR Act would not commence.

Further, in the absence of the Certificate, and other relevant documents surrounding the issuance of the Certificate, in particular the documents/information basis which the Certificate Officer has come to the conclusion under Section 3 of the OPDR Act that any monies are due from the Company to the Collector ("Relevant Documents"), the Company is impaired from submitting a petition under Section 8 to adequately challenge the Alleged Liability.

Accordingly, your goodself is requested to provide the Certificate and the Relevant Documents, at the earliest, to enable the Company to take necessary steps under Section 8 of the OPDR Act.

This is without prejudice to all rights and contentions of the Company with respect to the Alleged Demand.

Yours Sincerely, For ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited Sd/-

Authorised Signatory"

(Emphasis supplied)

9.3. However, the said written request coupled with

reasons to pray so, was disbelieved by the learned Certificate

Officer. The Certificate was confirmed on the very same day

with an observation that the certificate amount is due for

recovery from the Certificate Debtor. As is revealed from the

order sheet in Certificate Case No.01/2023, the said order

dated 23.03.2023 was passed before expiry of statutory period

of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice in terms of

Section 6 of the OPDR Act. Despite asking for an adjournment

to file petition denying liability, the Certificate Officer

confirmed the certificate and ordered that the said amount

was due and recoverable from the Certificate Debtor.

However, both the Authorized Person/Officer of Certificate

Holder as well as Certificate Debtor were directed to settle the

certificate dues on or before the next date, i.e., 27.04.2023, to

which date the case stood adjourned for hearing. The said

order dated 23.03.2023, being relevant, is reproduced below.

"23.03.2023 The case is put up today. The learned G.P. is present. One Sri Sambit Sagar Pani, A.E.R.-Cum-A.E.I., appeared before the court being authorized by the Certificate Holder & filed hazira. On being noticed one Sri S. Nanda the authorized person on behalf of the Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (CDr) appeared before the court and submitted in writing admitting that the notice issued in Form-3 under Section 6 of the OPDR Act has been received by the CDr but without enclosing the Certificate for which he is unable to file petition under Section 8 of the OPDR Act to challenge the alleged liberty. Hence, he requested to provide the certificate and the relevant documents for which he is enable to comply to take necessary steps under Section 8 of the OPDR Act. On perusal of the case record it is revealed that the notice was issued to the CDr through Tahasildar, Kujang as per prescribed rule in Form No.3 under Section-6 of the OPDR, Act enclosing with the certificate requisition i.e. form No.1 & 2 vide this office Memo No. 79 Date 09.02.2023 to file denying petition if any challenging the said certificate requisition under Section-8 of the Act. As such the allegation of the CDr that the certificate has not been enclosed with the notice is not true. But during hearing Sri Nanda the authorized person on behalf of the CDr orally stated that necessary steps are being taken by consulting with the CHr for settlement of the certificate dues on One Time Settlement (OTS) & accordingly prayed 30 days more time. As such the allegation of the CDr that not supply of relevant documents is not justified and accordingly the certificate is confirmed and the certificate amount is due for recover from the CDr. However, considering the submission of the authorized person of CDr, both the

authorized person/officer of CHr & CDr are directed to settle the certificate dues on or before the next date.

The case is posted to 27.04.2023 for hearing."

(Emphasis supplied)

9.4. It is further revealed from the subsequent order

dated 27.04.2023 that the Certificate Holder submitted a

letter dated 26.04.2023 seeking time for rescheduling of

hearing of the Certificate Case on the ground that the

Certificate Debtor has allegedly submitted an application for

availing OTS Scheme notified by the Energy Department,

Govt. of Odisha. Based on the said written request made by

ACE-cum-EI, Cuttack, 15 days' time was allowed and the

certificate proceeding stood adjourned to 18.05.2023 for

hearing.

9.5. As is further revealed from the said order sheet

dated 18.05.2023, the A.E.R-cum-A.E.I., being authorized by

the Certificate Holder, appeared before the Certificate Officer

during hearing. After completion of hearing, one lady official,

being authorized by the Certificate Debtor, appeared before

the Certificate Officer and without submitting any document

she orally submitted that M/s. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel

Ltd. is not liable to pay the certificate amount, as claimed by

the Certificate Holder. However, as the case had already been

allegedly adjourned by the time she appeared before the

Certificate Officer, she was advised to appear on next date

with relevant documents regarding denial of the certificate

due. The said order dated 18.05.2023, being relevant, is

extracted below.

"18.05.2023 The case is put up today. The learned G.P. is present. One Sri Sambit Sagar Pani, A.E.R-Cum-A.E.I., appeared before the court being authorized by the Certificate Holder. During hearing of the cases the Certificate Debtor is found absent, but after completion of hearing one lady officials from the side of CDr appeared before me without submitting any documents authorized by CDr and orally submitted that M/s. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel Ltd. is not liable to pay the certificate amount as claimed by the Certificate Holder. Since the case has already been adjourned, hence she is advice to appear before the court on next date with relevant documents regarding denying of certificate due.

This case is posted to 06.07.2023 for hearing."

(Emphasis supplied)

9.6. As is revealed from the L.C.R, one of the impugned

orders dated 06.07.2023 was passed with the following

observations:

"From the above discussion and Heard arguments on behalf of both sides, I am of opinion that, so many opportunities have been given to the Certificate Debtor(CDr) to settle the certificate amount but he fails to do so, hence the certificate is confirmed and CDr is liable to pay the certificate amount. Hence, I do hereby ordered the Certificate Debtor(The Executive Director, M/S Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd, Bhubaneswar) to deposit the certificate amount with 121/2% interest per annum as calculated below within 30 days from the date receipt of the notice failing which the said amount will be realized by the execution proceedings as contemplated u/s 13,15&17 of OPDR Act,1962."

(Emphasis Supplied) 9.7. As is further revealed from the L.C.R, in addition

to letter dated 22.03.2023, a further communication was

made vide letter dated 12.05.2023, which was received with

due acknowledgement and seal on 18.05.2023 by the Office of

the Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Jagatsingpur. Contents

of the said letter 12.05.2023, being relevant, are reproduced

below:

"Date-12.05.2023 Ref-AMNS/BBSR/OTS/ED-120523

To The Collector cum Certificate Officer,

O/o Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Jagatsinghpur, P.S. Town Dist.-Jagatsinghpur, Odisha Ref: Notice pertaining to Certificate Case No.01/2023 dated 09.02.2023

Dear Mam,

We are in receipt of the captioned Notice pertaining to Certificate Case No.01/2023 dated 09.02.2023 ("Notice"), which was received by us on 01.03.2023. We note that the Notice has been issued to ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited under the Odisha Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 ("OPDR Act")

This is with respect to the Notice to Certificate Debtor received by AMNS ("we/us") on 1st of March 2023 from your good-offices with respect to Electricity dues to the tune of Rs.40,49,15,126.00/- under Odisha Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 ("OPDR Act") incurred by Essar Power Odisha Limited ("EPOL") prior to acquisition by us through proceeding under SARFAESI.

At the prelude, we strictly deny the liability as proposed. Humbly submit as follows:

1. That we have acquired EPOL pursuant to proceeding under the SARFAESI Act through Debt Recover Tribunal, Mumbai w.e.f. 29.01.2021. Therefore, the Electricity arrears as per the Notice accrued prior to the acquisition is not on us. Thus, the recovery proceeding is not maintainable.

2. That it is relevant to note that post acquisition of EPOL, the dues were undertaken to be waived or serviced by the erstwhile management of EPOL and the asset was transferred without any charged.

3. Moreover, pursuant to the One Time Settlement (OTS) floated by the Department of Electricity, Govt. of Odisha vide its Resolution dated 30.11.2022, the EPOL has participated in the same by furnishing Form-I. Following which, the Department has advised to process the application under Type-II i.e., by considering the generation and export of AMNS from 29.01.2021. The application thus is still pending consideration of the Department under the said Scheme. Hence, the demand is not final and a certificate case for recovery is not maintainable under the OPDR Act, and the Rules made thereunder.

4. That in that view of the matter, the sum proposed to be realized has not attained finality in view of the OTS proceeding pending consideration. Hence is not realizable. Moreover, we have also raised a dispute to that regard since the arrears up to 29.01.2021 been accrued against consumption of EPOL is payable by it in terms of the Settlement undertaking.

5. That we are having been served with the notice of the proceeding and having not received the required documents in shape of enclosures, this proceeding cannot proceed as per law and is liable to be dismissed.

6. That the demand sought to be recovered does not fall within the ambit of 'Public Demand' within the

meaning of the OCDR Act. Therefore, the said amount is not realizable under the present proceeding, more so when the dues have never accrued against us.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we humbly pray for grant of the statutory time period of 30 days for filing petition denying our liability under OPDR Act from the date of receipt.

The present correspondence may not be treated as our response Petition denying liability under Section 8 of the OPDR Act. We further reserve our right to file objection to the Notice in Certificate Case 01/2023 dated 09.02.2023 as per law within the said statutory period.

Yours Faithfully For Arcelor Mittal Nippol Steel India Limited Sd/-

Suparna Nanda Head-Corporate Affairs (Odisha)"

(Emphasis supplied)

9.8. It is further revealed from the L.C.R. that on

06.07.2023, 16 number of documents were filed by one Mr.

Behera, Authorized Person, on behalf of the Certificate Holder,

including the application for OTS in Form-1 submitted before

the concerned Authority by the Authorized Signatory on

behalf of the Essar Power (Orissa) Limited on 06.02.2023. On

06.07.2023, both the authorized officer of the Certificate

Debtor so also their Advocate were present during hearing of

the Certificate Case No.01/2023.

9.9. Worthwhile to mention here that Section 9 of the

OPDR Act mandates that the Certificate Officer, in whose

office the original certificate is filed, may, after hearing the

petition and taking evidence, if necessary, confirm, set aside,

modify or vary the certificate as he deems fit. As is revealed

from the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in Certificate Case

No.01/2023, though documents were filed by the Certificate

Holder vide a separate list on the said date, the same were

never proved by the Certificate Holder in accordance with law

by leading evidence, thereby giving opportunity to the

Advocate for the Certificate Debtor, who was present on the

said date, to cross-examine the witness.

9.10. That apart, in the impugned order dated

06.07.2023, the Certificate Officer has not dealt with any of

the said documents produced by the Certificate Holder to

substantiate the claim made before it, to be recovered as an

arrear of land revenue from the Certificate Debtor-the

Petitioner Company. Further, while passing the impugned

order, though the communication made by Mr. S. Nanda,

Head-Corporate Affairs(Odisha) dated 12.05.2023, vide which

the liability to pay was disputed and specifically denied and the

said letter was very much on record, wherein a mention was

also made reserving its right to file petition denying liability

after getting the required documents in shape of enclosures,

without taking into consideration the contents of the said

communication, the learned Certificate Officer proceeded and

determined the certificate, allegedly payable by the Certificate

Debtor. It was observed that the Certificate Holder has issued

letters dated 03.02.2023 and dated 24.02.2023 to the

Certificate Debtor to settle the electricity dues as per the OTS

proposal submitted by the Energy Deptt. vide letter dated

30.11.2022. However, the Certificate Debtor allegedly did not

turn up to avail the said benefit, when admittedly, the

document on record, produced before the Certificate Officer

demonstrates that such application for OTS was submitted by

the previous management, i.e., Essar Power Orissa Ltd.

(EPOL).

10. Law is well settled that in appropriate cases,

where there is procedural flaw or the Court, authority,

government body, or individual with a specific legal power,

has not used it, leading to various legal consequences or

question about its legitimacy, alternative remedy would not be

a bar for the parties to approach the writ Court.

11. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,

(2021) 6 SCC 771, the Supreme Court held as follows;

"27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be

entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Further, in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. E&TOCAA,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, the Supreme Court held as follows;

"4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be

traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the Petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party

to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a High Court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the Petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court on the ground that the Petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.

5. A little after the dawn of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench of this Court in its decision reported in [1958] SCR 595 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh) had the occasion to observe as follows :

"10. In the next place it must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is

with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies.. . ."

6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph 15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under :

(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights ;

(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice ;

(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction ; or

(iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. Admittedly, there is a procedural flaw in the OPDR

proceeding, as detailed above. That apart, despite giving

written communication for time, followed by communication

dated 12.05.2023 by the Petitioner-Company denying liability,

the same was not taken into consideration while passing one

of the impugned orders dated 06.07.2023. Further, the

procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the OPDR Act was

never followed before the determination of the Certificate,

including not taking into consideration the documents filed by

the CHr, and thereby giving opportunity to the Certificate

Debtor to cross-examine the CHr witnesses, which amounts

to violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, this Court

is of the view that, despite availability of alternative remedy,

the writ petition is maintainable and impugned action

deserves adjudication by the writ court, instead of relegating

the Petitioner to the appellate forum under Section 60(c) of

the OPDR Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour

of the Petitioner.

14. So far as Point Nos.2 and 3, both the said points

being interlinked, are dealt with and answered together for

the sake of brevity.

14.1. So far as applicability of Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 to certificate proceedings under the

OPDR Act, Section 64 of the OPDR Act, so also Section 29 (2)

of Limitation Act, being relevant, are reproduced below.

"Section 64 of the OPDR Act, 1962

"64. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(1) Sections 6 to 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall not apply to suits, appeals or applications under this Act.

(2) Except as declared in Sub-section (1), or as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall apply to all proceedings under this Act as if a certificate filed hereunder where a decree of a Civil Court."

"Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963

29. Savings.-

(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of1872).

(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.

(4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of ''easement" in section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of1882), may for the time being extend."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14.2. It is amply clear from the aforesaid provisions that

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the

proceedings under the OPDR Act, which empowers the Court

to condone the delay beyond the statutory period of 30 days

to file petition denying liability.

14.3. Admittedly, the petition denying liability, though

was filed belatedly because of the reasons detailed above, no

applications were filed along with the said petition to condone

the delay and consider the said petition denying liability on

merit, after recalling one of the impugned orders dated

06.07.2023, as at Annexure-3.

14.4. Law is well settled that when a Court has

authority to condone the delay, there is no need to file a

separate application for condonation of delay and the

concerned Court can condone the delay by itself and accept

the petition and decide the same on merit, provided there is

sufficient reasons to file/move such an application beyond the

statutory period.

14.5. In Sesh Nath Singh (supra), the Supreme Court

clarified that a formal application for condonation of delay

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not mandatory, and

sufficient cause can be considered even without a formal

written application. Paras 63 and 64 of the said judgment,

being relevant, are reproduced below;

"63. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application. The Section enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the Appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application and/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the Appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application.

64. A plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that, it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted under the said section. Had such an application been mandatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Section 5 would then have read that the Court might condone delay beyond the time prescribed by limitation for filing an application or appeal, if on consideration of

the application of the Appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, for condonation of delay, the Court is satisfied that the Appellant/applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Alternatively, a proviso or an Explanation would have been added to Section 5, requiring the Appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, to make an application for condonation .of delay. However, the Court can always insist that an application or an affidavit showing cause for the delay! be filed. No applicant or Appellant can claim condonation of delay Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as of right, without making an application."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. From the discussions detailed above, legal

provisions and the settled position of law, this Court is of the

view that Section-5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to

proceedings under the OPDR Act. That apart, even though no

separate application for condonation of delay was filed by the

Petitioner -Company along with its petition denying liability,

the Certificate Officer, taking note of the reasons detailed in

the petition denying liability filed belatedly, could have taken

into consideration such petition on merit, subject to the

Petitioner filing an application to recall the order dated

06.07.2023 and accept the petition denying liability. Point

Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

16. So far as Point No.4, as is revealed from the order

sheet in Certificate Case No.01/2023, pursuant to order

dated 23.03.2023, which was passed before expiry of

statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice

in terms of Section 6 of the OPDR Act , the matter stood

adjourned. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.04.2023, followed

by order dated 18.05.2023, the Authorized Officer of the

Certificate Debtor was directed to appear before the Certificate

Officer on the next date, i.e., 06.07.2023, with relevant

documents regarding denial of certificate dues. On

06.07.2023, one of the impugned orders was passed without

considering the written submission made by the Certificate

Debtor dated 12.05.2023, which was received by the Office of

the Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Jagatsinghpur on

18.05.2023.

16.1. Subsequently, the Petitioner-Certificate Debtor

filed a petition denying liability on 04.11.2023 along with

documents appended thereto, to substantiate the stand taken

therein. However, the learned Certificate Officer rejected the

said petition solely on the ground that the Certificate Debtor

has to file petition under Section 8 of the OPDR Act denying

liability of the certificate dues within one month, i.e., by

23.03.2023, whereas, the Certificate Debtor has filed the said

petition denying liability after a lapse of 08 months and 10

days, after confirmation of the certificate and issuance of

demand notice and such petition merits no consideration at

all.

16.2. The conduct of the parties, including the

Certificate Officer, so also documents on record well

demonstrate that the reason of non-filing of petition denying

liability was non-supply of the enclosures to the notice in

Form-3 given to the Certificate Debtor so also pendency of

OTS application at the instance of M/s. Essar Power (Orissa)

Ltd. (EPOL) before the concerned authority to avail OTS

floated by the Department of Electricity, Govt. of Odisha vide

Resolution dated 30.11.2022 and participation of EPOL to

avail the said OTS Scheme, as the subject matter of the

recovery proceeding in Certificate Case No.01/2023 was

pertaining to the unpaid arrear electricity duty prior to

acquisition of the said unit by the Petitioner -Company, which

acquired the said unit of EPOL pursuant to proceeding under

the SARFAESI Act through the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Mumbai w.e.f.29.01.2021.

16.3. Ultimately, after rejection of the said application of

OTS submitted by the EPOL for non-prosecution, as required

under Section 8 of the OPDR Act, the Petitioner -Company

filed petition denying liability on 04.11.2023, detailing therein

the reasons to deny the said liability on merit so also on the

ground that it is not the Certificate Debtor.

16.4. That apart, the reason to file such an application

denying liability belatedly on 04.11.2023 was also detailed in

the said petition, supported with all relevant documents in

form of an Index. However, no application was submitted

along with the said petition denying liability to condone the

delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so also

to recall the order dated 06.07.2023. Ultimately, the said

petition denying liability was rejected by the Certificate Officer

vide the second impugned order dated 04.11.2023, as at

Annexure-5, purely on the technical ground that such

petition being filed after lapse of 8 months and 10 days, after

confirmation of the certificate and issuance of demand notice,

is not entertainable/maintainable.

16.5. Admittedly, notice in Form No.3 dated 09.02.2023

in Certificate Case No.01/2023 was served through the

Process Server on 24.02.2023 on the CDr. One of the

impugned orders dated 23.03.2023, vide which it was

observed by the Certificate Officer that the certificate is

confirmed and the certificate amount is due for recovery from

the Certificate Debtor, was passed before expiry of the

statutory period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice

so also incorrectly stating therein that the authorized person,

who was present on behalf of the Certificate Debtor, orally

stated before the Certificate Officer that necessary steps are

being taken in consultation with the Certificate Holder for

settlement of certificate dues through OTS.

16.6. This Court fails to understand from the said order

that, despite such observation/order that the certificate is

confirmed and is due for recovery from the Certificate Debtor,

why the matter stood adjourned to 27.04.2023 for hearing.

Thereafter, again the matter stood adjourned to 18.05.2023

so also to 06.07.2023 for hearing. Finally, the second

impugned order was passed on 06.07.2023 directing the

Certificate Debtor to deposit the certificate amount with

12.5% interest per annum, as calculated vide the said order,

within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

16.7. Further, as is revealed from the order dated

18.05.2023, the Certificate Officer advised the Authorized

Officer of the Certificate Debtor to appear before him on

06.07.2023 with relevant documents regarding denying

certificate dues. Such order itself indicates that the period to

file petition denying liability was deemed to be extended till

06.07.2023. That apart, though the order dated 06.07.2023

indicates that such an order has been passed after hearing

arguments on behalf of both the sides, but nothing has been

reflected in the said order as to what was the argument

advanced by the learned Counsel for the Certificate Debtor

(present Petitioner ) on the said date. Further, though the

order dated 23.03.2023, i.e., the first date fixed for

appearance of the Certificate Debtor indicates that the

certificate is confirmed; again passing an order on 06.07.2023

that the certificate is confirmed and the Certificate Debtor is

liable to pay the certificate amount seems to be misconceived.

That apart, such order being passed without following due

procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the O.P.D.R. Act and

without taking note of documents filed by the Certificate

Holder, even though no evidence was led by the Certificate

Holder to prove those documents in accordance with law, is

perverse and deserves interference.

16.8. That apart, in view of the communications made

by the Certificate Debtor, more particularly, the

communication dated 12.05.2023, the contents of which have

been extracted above, the finding of the Certificate Officer that

the Certificate Debtor admitted said dues by making an

application under the OTS and did not file any reply denying

such liability, is perverse and deserves interference.

Consequently, the subsequent order so also the

communications/actions, if any, also deserve interference.

Issue No-4 is answered accordingly.

17. Accordingly, the Orders dated 09.02.2023 and

06.07.2023 passed by the Collector-cum-Certificate Officer,

Jagatsinghpur in Certificate Case No.01 of 2023 are set aside.

All the impugned consequential actions of the Certificate

Officer, based on such determination, are also hereby set

aside.

18. In view of the detailed discussions made above,

this Court is of the view that, the issue regarding liability of

the Petitioner-Company needs reconsideration. Accordingly,

without expressing any opinion regarding the liability of the

Petitioner-Company on merit, the matter is remitted back to

the Certificate Officer-cum-Collector, Jagatsinghpur for

rehearing of Certificate Case No.01 of 2023. The learned

Certificate Officer is directed to consider the petition denying

liability filed by the Petitioner as well as the documents

appended thereto and conclude the proceeding in Certificate

Case No.01 of 2023 on merit, following due procedure in

terms of Section 9 of the OPDR Act.

19. Registry is directed to return the original record in

Certificate Case No.01 of 2023 to the office of the learned

Advocate General forthwith for onward transmission of the

said record to the Office of the Certificate Officer-cum-

Collector, Jagatsinghpur, enabling him to proceed further on

merit, as observed above.

20. To avoid delay, both the Certificate Holder as well

as Certificate Debtor are directed to appear before the

Certificate Officer-cum-Collector, Jagatsinghpur on 5th

January, 2026, at 11.00 A.M., on which date the Certificate

Officer-cum-Collector, Jagatsinghpur shall do well to fix a

date for hearing and proceed further in Certificate Case No.01

of 2023 in accordance with law, as indicated above, and try to

conclude the said proceeding at the earliest.

21. With the said observation and direction, the Writ

Petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.

...............................

S.K. MISHRA, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated, the 15th December, 2025/Kanhu

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.