Orissa High Court
Abdul Malik Khan vs ) The Chairman-Cum-Managing ..... ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2359 of 2025
Abdul Malik Khan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Kamalakanta Nayak
-versus-
1) The Chairman-cum-managing ..... Opposite Parties
Director, Orissa State Road
Transport Corporation, Bbsr
2) General Manager, Osrtc, Bbsr Represented By Adv. -
3) Asst. Manager(depot) , Osrtc, Bbsr Mr. Amitav Tripathy
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.01.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Amitav
Tripathy, 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.3,81,902/-(Rupees Three lakh Eighty-one Thousand Nine hundred
two), which was 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.3,81,902/-(Rupees Three lakh Eighty-one
Thousand Nine hundred two) 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. Tripathy, 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 04.01.2025 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.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
