Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Shantilata Jena – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the lease and dues (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding demands and relief (Para 3) |
| 3. state's stance on refund requests (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis and legal reasoning (Para 6) |
| 5. determination of competent authority for refund (Para 7) |
| 6. order directing reconsideration of refund claim (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
2. The facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals that the lease agreement dated 1st January, 2021 in respect of Patelikuda Sand Sairat at the embankment of river Bhargavi under Pipili Tahasil of Puri district was executed in favour of the petitioner under the provision of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”) for a period of five years commencing on 21st December, 2020 and ending on 20th December, 2025.
2.2. Though the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.78,36,578/- on different dates out of total demand of Rs.85,72,638/- and requested the Mining Officer, Puri to extend the time to deposit the rest amount of Rs.7,36,060/-, which she could not deposit due to health issues, having not considered such plight, the Tahasildar, Pipili demanded the rest amount by adding interest at the rate of 24% per annum
The Mining Officer must independently assess refund claims regarding Sairat dues under amended rules, with proper reasoning required for decisions, ensuring jurisdictional compliance.
Royalty – Bidder is advised to inspect and satisfy itself regarding mining area before participating in bidding process.
FIRs against a mineral concessionaire were quashed due to lack of verification and failure to establish cognizable offences, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecution.
The court emphasized the principle that when a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and any other methods are barred.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned orders granting extension of time for lifting sand were illegal, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction, and thus des....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
