Ab Roadlines vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court did not issue a separate, specific direction to the opposite parties. Instead, it observed that if the petitioner faced any difficulty in transporting lawfully extracted sand, despite having paid royalty, GST, and other government dues, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned Tahasildar. The Tahasildar was expected to redress the petitioner's grievances in accordance with the law. The Court found the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate persuasive enough not to necessitate further orders beyond this liberty granted to the petitioner. The primary issue of entitlement to the permit was implicitly addressed by directing the petitioner to the Tahasildar for grievance redressal if difficulties persisted, implying that the existing legal framework should allow such transportation if all conditions are met.

Facts

The petitioner, AB Roadlines, through its proprietor Ranjit Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties (State of Odisha) to issue a necessary permit for transporting sand outside the State. The petitioner argued that despite lawful extraction and payment of royalty and GST, they were not being allowed to transport sand. The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, referred to an office memorandum dated 21.12.2019, which, in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment, directed Collectors to allow transportation of lawfully extracted sand outside the State. The State indicated that the petitioner would need to produce proof of lawful extraction and payment of dues upon demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the issuance of a permit to transport sand outside the State of Odisha, considering the existing circulars and Supreme Court judgments? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to transport sand extracted lawfully from a licensed quarry, having paid all necessary government dues including royalty and GST. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya, which was followed by a circular from the Government of Odisha. The petitioner contended that the circular, however, was not being effectively implemented to allow their transportation. Revenue/State's contention: The State referred to Clause 3 of the office memorandum dated 21.12.2019, which was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya. The State submitted that the memorandum directed Collectors to allow transportation of lawfully extracted sand outside the State and that the petitioner would need to produce proof of lawful extraction and payment of royalty and GST upon demand.