Orissa High Court
Prava Ranjan Mishra vs State Of Odisha on 18 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21421 of 2023
Prava Ranjan Mishra, S/o. Late Trinath ... Petitioner
Mishra, Partner of M/s. PREMEX, At-
Plot No.652, Ekamra Villa, IRC Village,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khordha.
Mr. Sidhartha Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha, represented through its ... Opposite Parties
Secretary, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department, Govt. of
Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda and
Others
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 18.07.2024
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-M/s. PREMEX through its partner Prava Ranjan Mishra, has sought for a direction to opposite party No.3 to refund the money deposited in respect of Kamagada Road Metal Quarry-55 and 56 or adjust it in respect of Bangarada sand bed.
3. It is the petitioner‟s case that he was a successful bidder for extraction of minor mineral for the aforesaid quarries and he being a successful bidder and as he had statutory clearances, was allowed to Page 1 of 5 enter into a lease agreement. It is his case that though the lease deed was executed on 30.08.2019 for both the sources, in terms of an order dated 02.05.2020, the State Government had directed all the controlling authorities to compute the lease period with effect from the date of registration of the lease deed under Rule 43(2) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, „OMMC Rules, 2016‟). Despite approval of the mining plan, a supplementary lease deed was not executed. The auction had been held in absence of the feasibility study report. Later, the feasibility report under Section 27(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 declared that the source were not feasible. The quarry was not allowed to be operated and subsequent supplementary lease deed was not executed. On 12.03.2021, opposite party No.3 issued illegal demand notice in respect of both the quarries. It is the petitioner‟s grievance that it was arbitrary on the part of the opposite parties to have held the auction of the sources without any source study report under Rule 27(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 and, therefore, issuance of demand notice is illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner had requested for revising the demand notice. However, opposite party No.2, arbitrarily took the steps for initiating Public Demand Recovery proceeding because of which the petitioner was compelled to pay illegal demand of Rs.2,21,880/- and Rs.2,24,849/-. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4189 of 2023, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.02.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation. The said representation has been rejected by an order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Aska, Ganjam.
Page 2 of 54. The petitioner has asserted that he was misled by opposite party No.3 and had made investments in anticipation of the feasibility report under Rule 27(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 and the sources had been auctioned without feasibility report. In such situation, rejection of the petitioner‟s representation referring to Rule 63 of OMMC Rules, 2016 is highly unreasonable as the said rule can be invoked in respect of genuinely payable money in the nature of public demand, and not for money obtained illegally by misrepresentation. It is his case that the demand notice was issued without application of mind as the quarry was not found feasible under Rule 27(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
5. We have carefully gone through the communication dated 04.07.2023 addressed to the petitioner rejecting his claim by referring to Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 which reads as under:
"63. Refund of revenue:- Any amount paid in excess of the amount payable by the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit under these rules shall be refunded to him within the following financial year by the Competent Authority with prior approval of the Controlling Authority.
Provided that the holder of a prospecting license-cum- mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit under these rules claiming such refund shall submit an application for the said refund to the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of such excess payment failing which the prayer for refund of such excess payment shall not be entertained.Page 3 of 5
Provided further that in case the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease prays for refund of any excess payment made by him, the Competent Authority may adjust such excess payment towards the dues payable by him during subsequent period of mining/quarry operations."
6. The Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules clearly lays down that the excess amount payable by the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease permit shall be refunded to him within the following financial year by the Competent Authority provided such holder submits an application claiming such refund to the Competent Authority within six months from the date of excess payment. The proviso to Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 in no uncertain terms states the consequence of failure to claim refund of excess payment within six months.
7. It would be beneficial to reproduce relevant portion of the communication dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure-7) of the Tahasildar, Aska which reads as under:
"The Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules 2016 clearly speaks that, the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit under these rule claiming such refund shall submit an application for the said refund to the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of such excess payment failing which the prayer for refund of such excess payment shall not be entertained. As you have neither submitted any application for adjustment nor claimed any excess payment in case of Dead rent within stipulated period before the competent authority, hence Page 4 of 5 your application for adjustment contradicts the OMMC Rules, 2016.
It is also ascertained from the sairat case record bearing No.17/2020-21 in respect of the Bangaraada sand bed, that despite of repeated reminder you have neither submitted monthly quarterly and yearly return in Form "J", Form "P" & Form K as per the OMMC Rules 2016 nor submitted any document on filling of GST in respect of Bangarada Sand bed."
8. The aforesaid decision of the Tahasildar, Aska in the Court‟s opinion, cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity requiring this Court‟s interference as the said order is apparently in accordance with the statutory provisions under the Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge SK Jena/Secy.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Aug-2024 16:35:34 Page 5 of 5