M/s. Flexi Infrastructure Project Limited State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12363 of 2022 M/s. Flexi Infrastructure Project Limited State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 13.03.2023 Order No. 09. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.K. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to extend the lease period for the petitioner- company for a period of two years from 2022-23 to 2023-24, by quashing the advertisement dated 29.04.2022 issued for holding fresh auction in respect of Naradpur Stone Quarry under Annexure-13. 4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.04.2015 issued by opposite party no.4 for auction of Naradpur Stone quarry on a long term lease basis, i.e. for a term of 5 years from 2015-16 to 2019-20, the petitioner participated and emerged as the highest bidder and accordingly the same was knocked down in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Page 1 of 4 the amount and also furnished the statutory documents. After complying the terms and conditions of the letter dated 08.10.2015, the opposite parties entered into an agreement with the petitioner for operation of quarry on 3rd October 2016, which has been placed on record as Annexure-5, in the prescribed Form L. Thereafter, the petitioner also deposited the royalty and other charges before opposite party no.4. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner started its quarry operation from 30.01.2017. The petitioner also deposited the royalty and other dues for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20, which was also acknowledged by the Tahasildar, Jhumpura. But due to non- issuance of transit permit for operation of the quarry for the period from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2020, the petitioner was deprived of operating the quarry. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition stating that for the laches of the opposite parties, if the petitioner could not be able to operate the quarry for the period from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2020, for that, the period of quarry should be extended from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that the amount, which has already been deposited for operation of the quarry, can be utilized, or else the amount which has been deposited with the opposite parties along with interest accrued thereof, may be refunded to the petitioner as because the petitioner has faced pecuniary loss for participating in the bid itself. 5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that pursuant to the fresh auction issued by the authorities, the petitioner participated in the auction process and also came out as L1 bidder, but the same has not yet been settled because of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.05.2022. So far as the claim of the petitioner for Page 2 of 4 extension for a period of two years, i.e. from 2022-23 to 2023-24 is concerned, that period cannot be extended, rather, if the petitioner so desires, he may get refund of the amount already deposited for two years along with interest. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner, having quoted highest price, the stone quarry was settled in his favour, the lease deed was executed and the petitioner operated the quarry, but for the period from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2020 due to non issuance of transit permit the petitioner was deprived of operating the quarry. Therefore, for the laches on the part of the opposite parties, if the petitioner has been deprived of operating the quarry, then it should be compensated for the period it could not be able to operate the quarry, by extending the period from 2022-23 to 2023-24 or the amount, which has been deposited by the petitioner towards royalty and other dues, should be refunded to it. But fact remains, the period of lease, pursuant to the agreement dated 03.10.2016 under Annexure-5, having been expired in the year 2021, the opposite parties issued tender call notice and the petitioner also participated in the said process and came out as L1. But due to the interim order passed by this Court, the same has not yet been settled. Be that as it may, if the dispute relates to the bid of the year 2015-16 to 2020-21, in that case, unless that dispute resolves, the further auction will cause difficulty to the petitioner. 7. In view of such position, when this Court called upon Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties, it is unequivocally contended by him that the opposite parties are not willing to extend the period of two Page 3 of 4 years for which the petitioner was deprived of operating the quarry, rather the opposite parties are willing to refund the amount, already deposited for operation of the quarry for a period of two years, i.e. for the period from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2020. If the opposite parties are willing to refund that amount, then for withholding the amount for such period till the actual date of refund, it should carry interest at least @ 6% per annum because it has caused a great loss to the petitioner. 8. Thereby, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to refund the amount, which had been deposited by the petitioner with the opposite party-Tahasildar, for depriving the petitioner to operate the quarry for a period of two years, i.e. for the period from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2020. The amount, which had been deposited towards royalty and other dues shall also be refunded. The said amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the actual payment shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner. Needless to say that the entire exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Issued urgent certified copy as per rules. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 4 of 4