[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1990 of 2026
M/s. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, .... Petitioners
West Bengal and another
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Prabhu Prasad Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India
along with Mr. M. Kumar, CGC
Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 17.03.2026
03. 1. The instant writ petition is at the behest of a mining lease holder
claiming the refund of an excess amount deposited in the National
Mineral Exploration and Development Trust (NMEDT).
2. Undisputedly, the period of lease expired by efflux of time on 31st
March, 2020 but despite the expiration thereof the excess amount,
which the petitioner deposited has not been refunded. Several
correspondences were made to the State Government but perceiving no
response from their end, the instant writ petition came to be filed
seeking a relief in the form of a refund of the said excess amount while
the instant writ petition remained pending. We have invited the
attention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) and
the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the
Union of India and the State of Odisha respectively to ascertain as to
whether there is any payment of excess amount as claimed by the
petitioner.
3. In course of hearing, the respective counsel echoed that the excess
payment has been made but were not ad idem on the liability to refund
the said amount. According to learned AGA for the State, the moment
the amount is deposited under the said head, it is immediately remitted
to the Central State and therefore, the liability to refund the said amount
ceases to exist on the State Government and if there is any genuinity to
the claim, the refund shall have to be made by the Central Government.
Learned DSGI took time to take instructions as the necessary
data/relevant information relating to remittance of the said amount to
the said fund maintained by the Central Government was lacking and a
direction was passed by this Court to furnish such information to the
learned DSGI. The said information was furnished by the learned AGA
to the learned DSGI and after verification of the same, the learned
DSGI appearing for the Central Government fairly submits that the
excess amount has been remitted to the petitioner in its account.
4. According to learned DSGI, the moment the excess amount has
been paid off, it forecloses all the adjudications to be made in the
instant writ petition and, therefore, it can be dismissed on such score.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not
concur with the submission of the opposite parties and invited the
attention of the Court that apart from the said amount, the claim also
relates to the payment of interest for unreasonable withholding of an
excess amount is still the dissent percepts between the DSGI and the
AGA on the liability to make the payment of any interest.
5. At the outset, both the counsel are unison on the issue that there is
no provision relating to the payment of interest and, therefore, the right
which does not emanate from the statute, cannot be granted on mere
asking.
6. We had an occasion to peruse Rule 49 of the Mineral (Other Than
Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016,
which postulates:
"49. Payment of interest.- The State Government may,
without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Act
or rules made thereunder, charge simple interest at the
rate of 24% per annum on any rent, royalty or fee other
than the fee payable under sub-rule (2) of rule 35 or
other sum due to that Government under the Act or
rules made thereunder or terms and conditions of any
mineral concession from the sixtieth day of the expiry
of the date fixed by that Government for payment of
such royalty, rent, fee or other sum and until payment
of such royalty, rent, fee or other sum is made."
It is manifest from the bare reading of the language and the
expressions employed in the above quoted provision that the State
Government may charge a simple interest @ 12% per annum on any
rent, royalty or fee other than the fee specified under sub-rule (2) of
Rule 35 or other sum due to the State Government under the Act or the
Rules to be reckoned from the date of expiry of the date of the liability
till the actual payment is made. Though the said provision constitutes a
charging provision yet the equitable principles can be gainfully applied
in relation to an unreasonable withholding of an amount by the
authorities of the Government. The equity is not a one way traffic but
has to be understood on the basis of the conduct, the act, the things
done in course of the transactions and/or dealing with the rights of the
parties and the one who seeks equity must approach the Court with
clean hands. If the Government is empowered to charge the interest on
a delayed payment, it would bring incongruity in the event, the excess
amount is retained and/or withheld by the Government without any
reasonable cause as the peculiar facts emerged from the stand of the
parties that both the State and the Central Government were in the state
of dissent on the remittance of the said amount to a respective fund.
Once the dark cloud is removed and the liability is crystallized, it would
be too harsh on the litigant not to be given the interest over and above
the sum withheld by the authorities. Since both the Central Government
and the State Government are at variance on the liability to make the
payment of the interest, we leave it open to them to resolve such dispute
between themselves. What would be the proportion of the liability is to
be ascertained and resolved by them on production of the relevant
information and the data but equally it cannot absolve the liability to
make the payment of any interest as the said excess amount remained
unreasonably withheld and deprives the petitioner to use and utilize the
usufructs therefrom. Since the principal amount has already been paid
off to the petitioner, we therefore, direct the Central Government to pay
the interest at the same rate as indicated in Rule 49 of the said Rules of
2016 after the date of expiration of the lease to the date of actual
payment. Such payment shall be made within six weeks from the date
of this order.
7. As indicated hereinabove, it is open to the Central Government,
who is now saddled with the liability to make the payment on account
of any interest to recover any amount which the State Government is
otherwise liable on account of such interest.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and
direction.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 19-Mar-2026 17:03:19
