IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 94 of 2025 Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Sambalpur …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate -versus- Tahasildar, Rengali, Sambalpur & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 08.01.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order passed by the Tahasildar, Rengali on dated 30.11.2024 in which the Petitioner was asked to pay the arrear demand of Rs.53,23,823/- as per the demand letter sent vide Letter No.4995 dated 05.11.2024. Page 2 of 3 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that when the demand notice under Annexure-7 was issued to the Petitioner by the Tahasildar, Rengali, a detailed reply was filed before the said Authority as to how the Petitioner is not entitled to pay any amount as per the said notice and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited through the Authorized Signatory -Vrs.- Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director & Others reported in (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 657 and Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. -Vrs.- State of Odisha & Others reported in 2022 SCC Online Ori 4168 has also been relied upon but the Authority while passing the impugned order has not considered the reply in its letter and spirit and mechanically directed the Petitioner to pay the arrear demand as was raised on 05.11.2024 as per Annexure-7 without applying its mind, to the grounds taken in Annexure-8. 5. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the order under Annexure-9 be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Tahasildar, Rengali to consider the reply of the Petitioner vide Annexure-8 and give opportunity of hearing to the p. 3 Petitioner and to pass a reasoned order as to whether the Petitioner is liable to make any payment towards the arrear demand or not prior to the resolution under Annexure-4. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tahasildar, Rengali and he shall issue notice to the parties and after hearing the matter and decide as to whether the contention raised by the Petitioner that he is not entitled to make any payment towards arrear demand is sustainable or not and the same shall be adjudicated within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner and to communicate the order to the petitioner within a period of two weeks of taking the decision. (S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/ Bijay