SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Murahari Sri Raman, J
Susanta Kumar Pattanaik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
WP(C) No.35721 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Niranjan Lenka
For the Respondents: Debashis Tripathy

A successful bidder in an auction sale is entitled to a refund of the bid and security deposits upon the cancellation of the sale, provided they comply with the procedural requirement of submitting original receipts and bank details to the authority.

Headnote:(A) Refund of Deposits - Auction Sale - Cancellation of an auction sale by the competent authority entitles the successful bidder to the refund of the bid amount and security deposits. (Para 2, 3.1)

(B) Procedural Compliance - Refund Process - The refund of deposited amounts is subject to the submission of original money receipts and bank account details as requested by the concerned authority. (Para 3.1, 3.3)

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the bid amount and security deposit after the cancellation of the auction sale.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has approache d this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ (s) as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opp parties to show cause as to way they shall not be directed to refund the bid amount of Rs.60,000/- and E.M.D./securities amount of Rs.18,810/-, total Rs.78,810/- deposited by the petitioner before the Opp. Party No.3 in TMC No.01/2011-12 since 26.08.2011 along with interest 12% per annum from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute directing them to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as your Lordship deem fit and proper for the ends of justice;

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. In pursuance of auction sale notice dated 12th August, 2011, the petitioner participated and his offer being accepted he was asked to deposit certain amounts, which he complied. The petitioner deposited Rs.78,810/- (which comprised Bid amount of Rs.60,000/- and security deposit of Rs.18,810/-). Instead of executing agreement and issuance of work order enabling him to lift the sand from the auctioned area, the opposite party no.3- Tahasildar, Suliapada in the district of Mayurbhanj issued fresh auction sale notice on 9th November, 2011.

2.1. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner submitted letter dated 18th November, 2011 claiming refund of amount deposited, which has not been attended to. A representation dated 24th June, 2013, eliciting grievance was submitted before the Collector, Mayurbhanj which was in vain.

2.2. It is submitted that as per Rule 53 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 , an agreement between the successful bidder and the competent authority was required to be executed within seven days from the date of payment of bid amount. Since the auction sale notice was cancelled and the refund was not granted, the petitioner filed writ petition being WP(C) No.9273 of 2014, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 21st February, 2022, granting liberty to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Additional District Magistrate, Baripada by way of Touzi Misc. Appeal, which came to be disposed of on 18.03.2025 with the following observation:

“But upon perusal of relevant provision under Rule 46(1) (procedure for filing appeal) of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 as above, I come up to a conclusion that this Court is not the appropriate forum to take a decision on the appeal memorandum filed by the appellant. As such, the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence, the appeal is disposed of.”

2.3. Since refund of amount of Rs.78,810/- has not been granted, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. When the matter is taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties furnished copy of written instructions received from the Tahasildar, Suliapada in Court today.

3.1. On perusal of the said instruction, this Court finds enclosed therewith a copy of letter dated 7th October, 2022 of the Tahasildar, Suliapada addressed to the petitioner with a request to submit “the original money receipt of above deposits” and particulars of bank accounts so as to enable him to credit the amount of refund claimed in connection with the auction of Jambhira Sand Bed at Gouduniduva for the year 2011-12 vide TMC No.01/2011-12 and also a letter dated 6th October, 2022 of the Deputy Collector, Touzi Collectorate, Mayurbhanj directing the Tahasildar to refund t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top