Orissa High Court
Gouranga Chandra Chanda vs ) The Chairman Cum ..... Opposite ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.816 of 2025
Gouranga Chandra Chanda ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Kamalakanta Nayak
-versus-
1) The Chairman Cum ..... Opposite Parties
Managing Director, Osrtc, Bbsr
2) G.m, Osrtc, Paribahan Represented By Adv. -
3) Asst. Manager, Depot, Osrtc,
Badambadi, Cuttack
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.02.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
Mr. A.P.Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application and
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed with a
prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund
and release an amount of Rs.2,14,791/- (Rupees Two
lakhs fourteen thousand seven hundred ninety one),
which has been recovered from the Petitioner by the
Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 on shortfall income for the
targeted income from the dues of the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,14,791/-
(Rupees Two lakhs fourteen thousand seven hundred
ninety one) has been illegally recovered from the dues
of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the
Petitioner is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount which
has been recovered by the OSRTC. In the aforesaid
context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to a
judgment of this Court in OJC No.8491 of 1999 in the
matter of Laxmidhara Patra v. Chairman-cum-M.D.,
OSRTC & Ors. as well as the case of Deepak Kumar
Sahoo v. OSRTC in W.P.(C) No.1424 of 2002. A
similar view has also been taken by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court of Bhaskar Ch. Garnaik v. The Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, OSRTC & Ors. in W.P.(C)
No.25725 of 2024 disposed of on 03.01.2025. He
further contended that while disposing of the W.P.(C)
No.25725 of 2024, the learned Coordinate Bench has
relied upon the aforesaid impugned judgments and has
eventually set aside the impugned order of recovery and
has further directed to refund the amount which has
been illegally recovered from the Petitioner along with
an interest @ 6% within a period of two months from the
date of communication of a copy of that order. He
further contended that the present Petitioner stands in a
similar footing with the aforesaid persons in whose case
this Court had already passed orders thereby directing
the refund of the sum which has been illegally
recovered. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties-
Corporation be directed to refund the amount that has
been illegally recovered from the present Petitioner.
5. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties-OSRTC, on the other contended that as a result
of such departmental proceeding initiated against the
Petitioner, the aforesaid amount has been realized from
the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that
the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality
and that the order directing recovery of the aforesaid
amount is well within their authority and in accordance
with law. On such grounds, learned counsel for the
Opposite Parties-Corporate submitted that the present
writ application is devoid of merit and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the
materials on record, further keeping in view the
judgments in the case of Laxmidhara Patra (supra) and
Deepak Kumar Sahoo (supra) as well as Bhaskar Ch.
Garnaik (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose
of the present writ application at the stage of admission
by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
grievance of the Petitioner which has been submitted
before the Opposite Party in the shape of the
representation dated 18.12.2024 under Annexure-2, in
accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid
orders passed by this Court and, dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking
and reasoned order. In the event it is found that the
Petitioner is placed on an identical footing to the above
noted persons, then the benefits which have been
extended to the aforesaid persons be also extended of
the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably
within ten weeks from the date of filing of the
application. Any decision taken by the Opposite Party
No.1 be intimated to the Petitioner as expeditiously as
possible preferably within ten days of the date of taking
of the decision.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-Feb-2025 11:59:14
