Lease terms bar refund or cross-period adjustment of excess royalty except upon premature administrative termination.

The petitioners, members of the fifth respondent fishermen’s cooperative society, sought adjustment of an alleged royalty overpayment of ₹15,93,472 for 2013–2018 against royalty payable for 2020–2025, and refund of the claimed balance of ₹88,530.50.

After their representation seeking a refund was directed to be considered, the second respondent rejected the claim, relying on Clause 7 of the lease deed dated 9 July 2020.

The petitioners challenged that rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioners could adjust the alleged excess royalty paid for 2013–2018 against royalty payable for 2020–2025, and claim a refund of the balance.

2. Whether the petitioners, as individual members of the cooperative society, could claim relief concerning a lease entered into between the respondents and the society.

Clause 7 of the lease deed provided that where actual royalty was less than the calculated annual minimum royalty, the annual minimum royalty would be retained by the Department; it provided for a refund of the balance only where the lease was prematurely terminated for administrative reasons.

The Court cited no statute or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

The Court held that Clause 7 did not permit refund or carry-forward of an amount said to exceed royalty calculated by reference to actual catch: it required retention of the annual minimum royalty where actual royalty was lower, and allowed a refund only on premature termination for administrative reasons.

Accordingly, the petitioners could not obtain the claimed adjustment between the two lease periods or the resulting refund. The Court also noted that the lease was between the respondents and the cooperative society, whereas the petitioners were only its members.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.