The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to cancel a bid under Rule 27(16) of the OMMC Rules must be exercised in a just, fair, and reasonable manner, and the cancellation of the auction should not cause serious prejudice to the bidders.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, C.J. - The challenge in all these petitions is to the cancellation of the auction held in respect of Black Stone Quarries located in the Dharmasala Tahsil in Jajpur district. The cancellation was intimated to each of the Petitioners by separate letters dated 17th May, 2021 by the Tahsildar, Dharmasala (Opposite Party No.3). In each of the petitions a direction has been sought to the Opposite Parties to declare the Petitioner as the highest successful bidder in respect of the concerned stone quarry, accept the rate quoted by the Petitioner and execute the lease agreement in the Petitioner's favour.

2. It is noted at the outset that, although a prayer has been made in some of the writ petitions to declare Rule 46 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 ('OMMC Rules, 2016') as ultra vires Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Amendment) Act, 2015 ('MMDR Act'), during the course of argument, the counsels for the Petitioners stated that they were not pressing that prayer.

3. Since the facts in all the cases are almost similar, illustratively the facts in W.P. (C) No.17285 of 2021 are discussed first. Here, an advertisement was issued on 22nd February, 2021 for a long-term 5 year lease of several Sairat Sources in Dharmasala Tahsil. As far as the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.17285 of 2021 is concerned, he had submitted an application for allotment of the mining lease in respect of Rahadpur Black Stone Quarry No.1 pertaining to Sairat Case No.23 of 2021 at Serial No.14 of the Advertisement.

4. According to the Petitioner, subsequent to the opening of the bids on 23rd March, 2021, it was found that the Petitioner was the only successful bidder. Although other bidders had quoted a higher price, they had failed to submit the relevant property list which was a mandatory requirement for consideration of the Bid.

5. While the letter dated 29th April, 2021 of Opposite Party No.3 informed the Petitioner that he was the highest bidder, and that he should come to the office of Opposite Party No.3 for negotiation of the bid amount, since, according to the Petitioner, this was contrary to the applicable OMMC Rules, he did not proceed for negotiation. It is stated that the Petitioner was issued intimation in Form-F vide letter dated 10th May, 2021 by Opposite Party No.1 declaring him to be the successful bidder. However, the additional charge was unilaterally and arbitrarily enhanced from Rs.65/- quoted by the Petitioner to Rs.275/- + 1. The Petitioner was asked to deposit 1/4th of the amount so calculated within 15 days, failing which the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) would be forfeited.

6. While the matter stood thus, the auction was totally cancelled by the Opposite Parties by the impugned letter dated 17th May, 2021. The said letter reads as under:

"Sir/Madam, This is to inform you that the Collector-cum-Controlling Authority under OMMC Rules 2016 and vide decision taken on Dt-13.05.2021, in the District Level Committee for Settlement of Sairat Sources Through Tender Process, it has been decided to cancel the minor mineral long term lease proceeding due to insufficient participation of qualified bidders, i.e. participation of only one or no valid bidder. The bid knocked in your favour stands cancelled vide District Office (Res) memo no.109 Dt.15.05.2021. Hence, you are hereby informed to receive the EMD and security deposit from this office within seven days from the date of issue of this letter. Yours faithfully, Tahasildar, Dharmasala."

7. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed. The facts of the other connected writ petitions are more or less similar. Although in some cases there may have been more than one bidder, it stood confirmed during hearing of all the writ petitions that, with reference to each of the respective Stone Sairats for which the Petitioners had bid, there was only one valid bid.

8. This Court heard the submissions of Mr. Subir Palit, lea