Orissa High Court
Mala Roy And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, M.S. Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 13134 of 2023
Mala Roy and others ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.R. Patro, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. B. Mohorana, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
18.05.2023 Order No. I.A. No. 7380 of 2023 02. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioners for correction of the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 13134 of 2023.
3. Considering the averments made in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.13134 of 2023 is recalled and fresh order incorporating necessary corrections is passed today in separate order sheet.
4. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant (M.S. RAMAN) Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA JUDGE Date: 19-May-2023 12:28:59 P.T.O. Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13134 of 2023 Mala Roy and others ..... Petitioner Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. P.R. Patro, Advocate Vs. State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. B. Mohorana, CGC CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 18.05.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. P. Rama Krishna Patro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. B. Moharana, learned CGC appearing for opposite party-Union of India.
3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by Opposite Party No. 1 under Annexure-1 Series and to direct the Opposite Parties to execute a supplementary lease deed in favour of the Petitioners for a period of 6 years 10 months and 15 days to compensate for the loss of lease period w.e.f. 16.05.2013 to 31.03.2020, along with extending the validity of the requisite statutory clearance. The petitioners further seek direction Page 2 of 6 to Opposite Party No. 1 to transfer an amount of Rs.223,10,13,121/-
deposited by them in the Civil Deposit account to that of the compensation account (OMBADC) and to adjust Rs.224,11,13,121/- towards full and final payment of compensation to be deposited by the Petitioners. They have also prayed to set aside any interest imposed by Opposite Party No.1 over and above actual compensation amount of Rs. 224,11,13,121/- and to direct Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.47,36,40,249/-, which has been deposited as a surplus amount over and above Rs. 224,11,13,121/-.
4. As it appears, this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 22431 of 2022, vide order dated 05.09.2022, observed as follows:-
"Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that pursuant to the order passed by the apex Court, the compensation amount has been determined, which the petitioners are liable to pay and as such, they have deposited the said amount. But it appears that demand raised by the authority includes interest. Therefore, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are not liable to pay interest. As a consequence thereof, in compliance of the order dated 07.07.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.9576 of 2019, the petitioners approached opposite party no.1 by filing representation under Annexure2 dated 22.07.2022, which is pending for consideration.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.1 to consider the representations filed by the petitioners vide Annexures-1 & 2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month, as undertaken by learned Additional Government Advocate, from the date of production of certified copy this order."
In compliance to the above order, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 has been passed, while disposing of the representation, observing that the demand of compensation for Rs.223,57,04,276/- under section 21(5) MMDR Act, 1957 for production in violation of statutory clearances (E.C) and demand of Rs. 54,08,845/- for violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was made against the lessee and the Page 3 of 6 lessee was directed to pay the same within 31.12.2017 as per orders of the Supreme Court dated 02.08.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No 114 of 2014 and the lessee didn't pay the demanded amount within the stipulated period. It was also indicated that the Supreme Court directed to charge simple interest at the rate of 12% and at the rate of 24% per annum on delayed payment from the sixtieth day onwards in terms of Rule 49 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic & Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 vide order passed in 1.A No. 43947 of 2018 in Common Cause matter. It was also directed that on account of delayed payment, a demand of interest of Rs. 171,67,17,921/- was raised by the DDM, Joda against the lessee, as the lessee failed to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated time. The lessee has only deposited Rs.271,47,53,370/- before OMBADC by selling the already extracted minerals and the demand of compensation as well as interest has remained unpaid by the lessee till date.
5. Mr. Kamat, learned counsel strenuously urged before this Court that the petitioners are not liable to pay the interest in view of the fact that this Court, vide order dated 14.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22559 of 2013, permitted the petitioners to remove the extracted ore from the mining leasehold, but the same could not be removed as the SLP was filed before the apex Court. With much endeavour made by the petitioners, the apex Court permitted the petitioners, vide order dated 16.07.2019, to remove the ores extracted by the petitioners. As a consequence thereof, whatever minerals were extracted, the amount has already been deposited with the State opposite parties. But fact remains, the delay caused cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Now the petitioners have been penalized for the delay in payment of penalty, which is not admissible under law. As a consequence thereof, it is contended that the order of imposition of interest passed by the Page 4 of 6 authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Apart from the same, it is alleged before this Court that there is amendment to provisions of law extending the benefit till March, 2020. However, no steps have been taken by the opposite party no.1 to execute the Supplementary Lease Deed extending the validity period of petitioners mining lease up to March, 2020. The same has not been taken note of while passing the order impugned. In view of such position, the demand so raised by the authority concerned, so far as interest is concerned, the petitioners are not liable to pay.
6. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contended that the order impugned being revisable one, instead of approaching the revisional authority, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the writ petition should not have been entertained. Otherwise also it is stated that since the matter is pending before the apex Court in SLP for adjudication and the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the interim order passed by the apex Court, so far as removal of minerals extracted by them, if any short fall or any demand is raised by the authority, the same can be adjudicated by the apex Court and not by this Court. Therefore, this Court should not entertain the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, rather the same should be dismissed at the threshold.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, as it appears, the petitioners were permitted by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22559 of 2013 for removal of extracted ore, but the same could not be done because of the pendency of the SLP. However, by virtue of the interim order passed in the SLP on 16.07.2019, the petitioners were permitted to remove the extracted ores and for that they have deposited the Page 5 of 6 amount, but so far as the compensation and interest part is concerned, this is the subject matter of dispute before the apex Court in the pending SLP. If any demand has been raised with regard to payment of compensation and interest, the same can be brought to the notice of the apex Court in the pending SLP case instead of filing writ petition in this Court. In any case, it may so happen that there may be some contradiction in the orders passed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Further, in the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22431 of 2022, it was only observed that the representation filed by the petitioners since was pending, the same should be considered by the appropriate authority, before whom the same was pending, and in compliance of the same the order has been passed under Annexure-1, which is revisable one. If the petitioners are so advised they may approach the Revisional Authority and they may also bring all such facts to the notice of the apex Court in the pending SLP.
8. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the appropriate forum, if they are so advised.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
Ashok JUDGE
Page 6 of 6