SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ., MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
Dinesh Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31357 of 2025
Decided On : 24-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms.Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

An authority cannot act beyond its statutory powers; orders made without jurisdiction are null and void. This principle applies to the cancellation of an auction by an unauthorized official after statutory amendments.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Cancellation of auction - The Tahasildar's order to cancel the auction of sand mining rights is challenged on the basis of jurisdiction under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022. The petitioner was the highest bidder but the auction was canceled due to the Tahasildar’s lack of jurisdiction following the amendment. This Court cited relevant judgments asserting that statutory authority must operate within their provisions, as any action taken beyond this scope is invalid. (Paras 2, 6, 7)

(B) Jurisdiction - The authority cannot make decisions outside its statutory powers, and actions without inherent jurisdiction are null and void. The correct authority must address the matter concerning the auction. (Paras 6.1, 6.3, 7.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner submitted a bid for a sand bed auction and was declared the highest bidder; however, the auction was canceled by the Tahasildar, deemed excessive of his powers post-rule amendment.

Findings of Court:
The cancellation is held invalid as the Tahasildar lacks jurisdiction. The records are to be transferred to the proper authority for a new decision.

Issues: Whether the Tahasildar had the authority to cancel the auction post-amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The order is invalid as it stemmed from an act conducted by an authority exceeding its jurisdiction, and an authority cannot delegate powers to another outside statutory provisions.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the cancellation order is set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge to auction cancellation based on jurisdiction (Para 1 , 2)
2. counterargument regarding the auction process before amendment (Para 3 , 5)
3. court's analysis on jurisdiction post-amendment (Para 4 , 6)
4. legal principles governing jurisdiction and statutory authority (Para 7)
5. order to set aside cancellation and transfer jurisdiction (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

1. Challenge is laid to order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Badasahi cancelling the auction of sairat source viz., “Balanga River Sand Bed, Belpal” vide advertisement No.498 dated 15.03.2022 in the instant writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is contended by Sri Prabodha Chandra Nayak, learned counsel that in response to advertisement dated 15.03.2022, the petitioner submitted bid along with requisite documents and deposited EMD to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. He was declared successful having quoted the highest bid. However, the lease could not be finalized on account of operation of interim order passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Kolkata in O.A. No.46/2022/EZ. He would submit that it is evident from impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Tahasildar that “the final order of the said NGT case No.46/2022/EZ was pending at SEIAA, Odisha for finalization of DSR as per instruction of Hon’ble NGT, Kolkata. And on dated 18/04/2025 the DSR has finalized by SEIAA, Odisha which is valid form 2025 to 2030.” It is, therefore, strenuously argued by Sri Nayak, learned counsel that the authority concerned settled sairat source of adjacent sand bed with much lower price than what is quoted by the petitioner. Notwithstanding such fact that the petitioner being declared on 29.04.2022 the highest bidder on opening the tender, the Tahasildar, Badasahi having no jurisdiction in view of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 promulgated w.e.f. 28.12.2022, cancelled the auction of Balanga River Sand Bed, Belpal. Placing heavy reliance on judgment dated 16.10.2025 rendered by this Court in Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025, it is urged that the Tahasildar after the aforesaid amendment came into force ceased to have power to deal with auction of minor mineral. Therefore, he contended that the order is liable to be set aside and the Competent Authority in terms of the aforesaid Amendment Rules, 2022 is empowered to take a decision in this matter.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that since the advertisement for auction of sand sairat of Balanga River Sand Bed, Belpal was floated prior to said Amendment Rules in 2022, the order of cancellation of auction by Tahasildar, Badasahi cannot be faulted with.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Perusal of record reveals that an advertisement for auction of minor mineral— sand sairat— i.e. Balanga River Sand Bed, Belpal was floated on 15.03.2022 and the petitioner was the highest bidder. The Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 came into force w.e.f. 28.12.2022 empowering the authorities in the Department of Steel and Mines to deal with the minor mineral.

6. In the judgment dated 16.10.2025 rendered in Dillip Kumar Sahoo (supra) this Court considered the effect and impact of jurisdiction of the Tahasildar to consider matters relating to minor mineral after the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“8. ***

The record would reveal that the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector proceeded to take such decision and issued several letters, which are challenged in the instant writ petition and decided to grant the sand sairat right in favour of the second highest bidder although the petitioner was initially declared as the first highest bidder.

***

10. There is no scintilla of doubt that an authority tracing power from the statutory rul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top