Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11343/2026 of NIRANJAN PRADHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11343 of 2026 Niranjan Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr.Abhisek Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms.Aishwarya Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11343 of 2026
Niranjan Pradhan
….
Petitioner
Mr.Abhisek Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Ms.Aishwarya Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
13.05.2026
01.
1. The petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder pursuant to the tender floated for auction of Kantapal Sand Quarry and the quarry permit was granted for a period of five years. The agreement was executed on 19.10.2015, and, therefore, the said period of the agreement expires on the midnight of 18.10.2020 as per Rule 8 (4) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for refund of deposit made thereunder but the authorities did not take any steps for the refund thereof.
2. Our attention is drawn to the representation dated 04.03.2021 filed by the petitioner to the Tahasildar, Jaleswar seeking refund of the said deposit but sensing that there is no step having taken nor the Tahasildar is paying heed to the request, another reminder was made on 30th September, 2021 which was duly received in the Office of the Tahasildar, Jaleswar. Till date, no steps have been taken nor the said deposit has been refunded to the petitioner.
3. The learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that on the basis of the recent representation made by the petitioner, the process has been activated and there is every possibility that the said amount would be refunded to the petitioner. Though the appearing counsels are not unison on the date of representation but we find from Anenxure-3 at page 72 that the copy of the said application was received way back on 30th September 2021. Even though the lease came to an end on and from 19.10.2020 but the claim for a refund can be presumed from 30th September, 2021. It is an obligation on the part of the authority to refund the deposit immediately upon expiration of the period of agreement and any attempt in withholding the said money is always regarded as an unjust enrichment upon the right to refund.
4. We are also not unmindful of the realties that because of the procedural hazards in the Government Department, sufficient time is consumed, and, therefore, an imposition of the interest would be burden on the public exchequer. Though the right to refund accrues on the date of expiration of lease, yet taking into account the fact that the petitioner approached the authority on 30th September, 2021 reminding them of their application to refund the said deposited amount we feel that the petitioner should be compensated in the form of an interest to be reckoned from the said date on an equitable principle.
5. We, therefore, direct the appropriate authority to refund the said deposited amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date together with an interest @ 6% commencing from 30th September, 2021 till the payment is made.
6. With the aforesaid observation (s), the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 14-May-2026 20:23:45 Signature Not Verified