[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Misrilall Mines Private vs State Of Odisha 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.1993 of 2026
M/s. Misrilall Mines Private .... Petitioners
Limited, West Bengal and another
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Prabhu Prasad Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
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. Petitioner No.1-Company, lessee in respect of Saruabil Chromite
Mines in villages-Saruabil, Kamarda and Talangi under Sukinda
Tahasil in Jajpur district, on expiry of period of lease since
31.03.2020 in terms of Section 8-A (6) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, approached the authority
concerned for refund of excess amount paid towards Royalty, District
Mineral Foundations (DMF) and National Mineral Exploration Trust
(NMET). The Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur Road Circle, Jajpur
having found excess amount paid towards royalty, DMF and NMET
after completion of online assessment upto 31.10.2020, intimated the
Director of Mines by letter dated 28.09.2021.
2. It is submitted by Mr.Prabhu Prasad Mohanty, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioners that even after such assessment being
made determining the excess Royalty, DMF and NMET being paid
by the petitioner No.1, there was delay in refund of such amount.
Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner No.1 had approached
this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.33347
of 2022, which came to be disposed of on 08.12.2022 with a
direction to the opposite party No.1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary to
Government in Department of Steel and Mines, Bhubaneswar to
consider the representation of the petitioner.
2.1. After considerable delay, on 02.08.2023, the opposite
parties refunded a sum of Rs.7,50,98,169/- towards excess royalty
collected from the petitioner No.1. After much persuasion the
opposite parties disbursed Rs.7,50,98,169/- towards excess royalty on
02.08.2023, Rs.2,29,85,686/- towards excess DMF on 04.11.2023.
Since there was inordinate delay in disbursal of the refund, the
petitioners have filed this writ petition for grant of following reliefs:
"In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
therefore prayed that your Lordships be graciously
pleased to allow the present writ application and issue
necessary order/orders, direction/directions,
writ/writs in the nature of mandamus or other writ
directing the Opposite Parties to pay interest @ 12%
per annum on the amount of Rs.7,58,35,834/- as
excess royalty from 31.10.2020 to 02.08.2023 (actual
date of refund) and Rs.2,29,85,686/- as excess DMF
from 31.10.2020 to 04.11.2023 (date of refund of
DMF) collected from the Petitioner No.1-Company.
And
Issue such other writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem it
fit and proper."
3. With the aforesaid undisputed facts, Mr.Saswat Das, learned
Addl. Government Advocate conceded that the amounts paid in
excess by the petitioners has already been refunded to the petitioner
No.1 in its account. Hence, the writ petition is not liable to be
entertained.
4. According to learned Addl. Government Advocate, 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 petitioners did not concur with the submission of
the opposite parties and invited the attention of the Court that the
prayer in the writ petition relates to the payment of interest for
unreasonable withholding of an excess amount.
5. At the outset, learned Addl. Government Advocate raised
objection 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. 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 the principal amount has already been paid
off to the petitioner, we therefore, direct the opposite parties 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. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and
direction.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 19-Mar-2026 18:42:56
