O R D E R

Leave granted .

Notice has been served on respondent nos. 1-4, but none ha s entered appearance on their behalf .

The impugned judgment, which directs the grant of mining leas e rights to respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd., wh o never participated in the tender floated on 30.11.2022, in ou r opinion, is unsustainable and contrary to law .

The appellant, Ajit Kumar Sahu, had participated in the tende r for Nihal Prasad Morrum Quarry, floated on 29.06.2020. The bi d offered by respondent no. 4, Amit Kumar Sahu, though the highest , was rejected on the grounds of an incomplete application. The bi d offered by respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd., whic h was the second highest, was accepted .

The disqualified respondent no.4, Amit Kumar Sahu, had the n filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack , where certain directions/orders were passed. The matter wa s challenged before this Court in SLP(C) No. 13876/2020, wherein thi s Court vide order dated 27.09.2022, had directed that the Stat e authorities shall re-advertise and issue a fresh tender call notic e for grant of lease for the appropriate period .

It is pursuant to the re e-tender, that the appellant befor e us, Ajit Kumar Sahu, had offered a bid of ₹82.27/- (Rupees eight y two and twenty-seven paisa only) per cubic meter1. It is apparen t that the said bid was extremely low, compared to the bid offere d three years earlier by respondent no. 4, Amit Kumar Sahu at a rat e of ₹467/- (Rupees four hundred sixty seven only) pcm. Responden t no. 5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd., the second highest bidder , had then offered a bid of ₹315/- (Rupees three hundred fiftee n only) pcm .

As observed earlier, in our opinion, the High Court was no t correct in directing that the State of Odisha should enter into a lease agreement with respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt . Ltd., based on the bid in the tender floated on 29.06.2020, eve n though they had not participated in the bids pursuant to the tende r notice dated 30.11.2022. It is immaterial that the M/s. Globetec h India Pvt. Ltd had agreed to pay Rs 467 pcm .

While allowing the said writ petition, the High Court ha s interfered and tinkered with the terms of the tender by permittin g a person, who had not bid for the tender, to become a successfu l tenderer. At best, the High Court could have directed to issue a fresh tender, once it was apparent that the tender given by th e appellant, Ajit Kumar Sahu, of ₹82.27/- (Rupees eighty two an d twenty seven paisa only) pcm, was extremely low .

1 For short “pcm”

During the course of the hearing, it was pointed out on behal f of respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd., that th e lease deed of the mine was executed on 03.02.2023. The said leas e would be treated as cancelled .

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd., states that despite this Court’s orde r staying the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 17.01.2023 , and observing that it will be open to the respondent(s)- authority , that is, the State of Odisha, to conduct a fresh tender, the sai d exercise has not been undertaken. At the same time, the State ha s not permitted respondent no. 5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd. , to remove machinery from the site .

It is, stated that in view of the interim order passed by thi s Court, no mining activity was undertaken .

Payments made by respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt .

Ltd., will be refunded to them by the State of Odisha within a period of six weeks from the date of copy of this order i s received. In case respondent no.5, M/s. E Globetech India Pvt . Ltd. has any other claim, including compensation, against the Stat e of Odisha, it will be entitled to take appropriate action .

Similarly, the securities furnished/ amounts deposited by th e appellant, Ajit Kumar Sahu, will be refunded to him within a perio d of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is received by th e State of Odisha .

In the fresh tender, the parties to this litigation will b e entitled to participate .

The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowe d in the aforesaid terms .

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of .

..................J .

(SANJIV KHANNA )

..................J .

(SANJAY KUMAR )

NEW DELHI ;

JULY 23, 2024 .

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI- A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDING S Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9408/202 3 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-01-202 3 in WP(C) No. 35185/2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa a t Cuttack )

AJIT KUMAR SAHU Petitioner(s )

VERSU S THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Respondent(s )

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.92582/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILIN G C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

Date : 23-07-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today .

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANN A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMA R For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv .

Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AO R Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv .

Mr. Debabrata Dash, Adv . Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv .

Mr. Manav Sabharwal, Adv .

For Respondent(s )

Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Adv .

Mr. Shovan Mishra, AO R Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv .

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the followin g

O R D E R

Leave granted .

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order .

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of .

(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN )

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRA R (Signed order is placed on the file )