Timelines for compliance in mining lease applications are mandatory under the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

The proposition of law from the various provisions contained in the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules”, for short) though unambiguous, is sought to be projected as ambiguous by the rhetoric of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The eloquence in deliberation of an argument appears to be focussed in a sympathetic way than on an actual interpretation of the statutory provisions. Certain provision quoted in a prescribed format appended to the statutory Rules is argued in such fashion as if it created uncertainty in arriving at a definite decision. After extensive arguments having advanced by the petitioner and on a manifest reading of several provisions sought to be relied upon, we do not find that the action of the authorities can be tainted either with malice or arbitrary.

2. In course of hearing, serious allegation was made against the official that his action is lopsided in order to favour a blue-eyed person, but we do not find a semblance of such averment in the instant writ petition. The only allegation which we perceived from the writ petition is that the said authority did not act fairly, transparently and in a bona fide manner so that his action can be termed as arbitrary. It is not a healthy practice in a judicial dispensation that an argument is advanced raising a serious allegation against a person without any pleading in this regard nor such person has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The action of the person cannot be condemned nor can be reprimanded solely on the basis of an oral submission when the requisite pleading is lacking. Be that as it may, we do not venture to go into the nitty-gritty of the aforesaid submissions as the same is de hors the pleading and we confine our consideration to the facts emanating from the record and the pleading filed in the instant case.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts are more or less undisputed.

4. Pursuant to the tender floated for granting a mining lease, i.e., a sand quarry, the petitioner submitted the bid and passed through the muster of both technical and financial stage. The petitioner was undeniably declared as the highest bidder and such factum was duly communicated to him. Subsequently, the petitioner was declared ineligible having not complied with the statutory requirements and the said action of the authority is assailed in the instant writ petition.

5. The pleading runs into several pages is primarily aimed upon the arbitrary and/or whimsical action of the authorities in declaring the petitioner unqualified having not deposited the royalty, the additional charges and the contribution to the District Mineral Foundation, within 15 days from the date of intimation. It is averred that the Rules permit the concurrence and/or consent to be given within 15 days from the date of such intimation, which, in fact, has been duly complied with in the instant case.

5.1. It is a specific case that the deposit of an amount equivalent to 1/4^th of the total amount of royalty and additional charges and contribution payable to the District Mineral Foundation on an annual minimum guaranteed quality being an uncertain amount unless calculated by the authority, such obligation does not commence until the successful bidder is communicated of the calculation.

5.2. The petitioner further stated that the consent and/or concurrence to accept the mining lease was to be given within the statutory period, on receipt of an intimation in a prescribed format. The authorities were called upon to calculate the total amount required to be deposited under Rule 27(7) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 . Such calculated amount was provided on the eve of 13^th day giving a time of two days to deposit the same. The petitioner says that the period of 15 days shall start from the date of receipt of calculation from the competent authority