Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ori) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R.Sarangi, B.P.Satapathy, JJ.
Srinivas Satapathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 29516 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
T.Mishra, Advocate, S.Das, Advocate, D.K.Pattnaik, Advocate, P.K.Muduli, Advocate, , Advocate

Compliance with the specific procedures outlined in the OMMC Rules, 2016 is mandatory, and failure to adhere to these procedures may result in the dismissal of claims.

Headnote:
Quarry Lease - OMMC Rules, 2016 - Rule-27(6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the Sub-Collector and the office order passed by the Collector, and to issue direction to grant the quarry lease in favor of the petitioner. The highest bidder failed to comply with the provisions under Rule-27(7) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, and the petitioner, being the second highest bidder, filed an appeal, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that no intimation was given to the petitioner as required under Rule-27(9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, and therefore, no right accrued in his favor. The court also held that the authorities cannot go beyond their commitment, and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed based on the observations of the Collector and the Sub-Collector.
Issues: Failure of the highest bidder to comply with Rule-27(7) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, and the petitioner's claim as the second highest bidder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Since no notice was given to the petitioner under Rule-27(9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the writ petition could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

B.R.SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 14/10/2022 under Annexure-12 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur in Quarry Lease Appeal Case No.1/22, as well as the office order dtd. 18/1/2021 (wrongly dated as 1/1/2021) passed by opposite party no.2-Colletor, Rayagada under Annexure-8, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to grant the quarry lease in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Tahasildar, Gunupur-opposite party no.4, issued a notice on 8/9/2020 inviting applications for grant of Turukaniguda Sand Bed under Gunupur Tahasil on long term lease of five years through auction. Pursuant to such auction notice, seven bidders submitted their applications in sealed cover within the time specified. Opposite party no.5, having quoted highest price, was found as successful bidder, whereas the petitioner was found as second highest bidder. Consequentially, opposite party no.4 issued notice in Form-F to opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 25/9/2020, for conveying the acceptance of the terms and conditions and for depositing the required amount within a period of 15 days. Though the said letter was received on 8/10/2020 by opposite party no.5, but he neither deposited the required amount nor did convey the acceptance of the terms and conditions within a period of 15 days, as provided under Rule-27(7) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short "OMMC Rules, 2016"). Therefore, opposite party no.4 issued a letter to opposite party no.2, on 29/10/2020, requesting for necessary order to issue intimation to the second highest bidder to convey the acceptance, as per Rule-27(9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. As no reply was received thereto, again opposite party no.4 issued another letter on 10/11/2020 to opposite party no.2 requesting him for necessary order to issue intimation to the second highest bidder, the petitioner herein. Thereafter, opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 12/11/2020, intimated opposite party no.4 that he has deposited the amount, as per the notice dtd. 25/9/2020, and that the payment was made on 2/11/2020, i.e., much after expiry of the stipulated period, which was duly acknowledged by the office of the opposite party no.4. But, in the meantime, the petitioner represented opposite party no.4, vide letter dtd. 12/11/2020, requesting for permission to deposit the bid amount, as he was the second higher bidder. Consequentially, opposite party no.4 forwarded the letters of both the petitioner and opposite party no.5 to opposite party no.2, vide letter dtd. 24/11/2020, for such permission, but the same was not acted upon and, as such, the Collector-cum-Controlling Authority directed the Tahasildar-opposite party no.4 to allow opposite party no.5, the highest bidder, as he has deposited the amount and there is huge difference between the amount deposited by opposite party no.5 vis-a-vis the petitioner. Consequentially, the EMD deposited by the petitioner was released in his favour on 28/7/2021, on the basis of which the petitioner could know that his bid has not been accepted, though he being the second highest bidder is eligible to get the auction as per Rule-27(9) of OMMC Rules, 2016.

2.1 Aggrieved by the above action of the authority, petitioner preferred appeal bearing Quarry Lease Appeal No.1/2022 before the Sub-Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, as provided under the OMMC Rules, 2016, on 18/5/2022. The said appeal was admitted on 18/5/2022 and opposite party no.4 was directed to submit the L.C.R. along with details of the tender papers. Subsequently, the matter was heard on 2/6/2022 and finally the same was dismissed, vide order dtd. 14/10/2022, on the ground that since the Collector has confirmed the quarry in favour of opposite party no.5, the appellate authority has no role to interfere with the same. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. Tanmay Mishra, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document