Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Harish Tandon, C.J., Murahari Sri Raman, J.
Dinesh Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31367 of 2025
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.C. Nayak, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Sahu, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.

Authority must operate strictly within statutory limits; actions beyond conferred powers are void and non-est.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Cancelation of auction - The petitioner successfully bid for Balanga River Sand Bed but the auction was cancelled by the Tahasildar post-amendment of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, lacking jurisdiction. The Tahasildar’s order was set aside for exceeding powers conferred by law. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Jurisdiction - Post-amendment authority - The court ruled that authority must act within statutory provisions, as established in previous judgments, emphasizing that actions outside conferred powers are void. (Para 6)

(C) Order Non Est - The court declared the cancellation order non est due to lack of jurisdiction on Tahasildar's part after the amendment. (Paras 6.1-7.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was the highest bidder for the sand bed but faced cancellation of the auction post the enforcement of new rules which conferred power to another authority.

Findings of Court:
The Tahasildar's cancellation order was without jurisdiction and thus null and void.

Issues: Whether the Tahasildar retained authority post-amendment to cancel the auction and implications of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity for statutory authority to operate strictly within the bounds of legal provisions and declared the Tahasildar's actions as exceeding jurisdictional authority.

Result: Order dated 23.09.2025 set aside and records transferred for fresh decision.

ORDER :

1. The challenge is made to order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Badasahi in cancelling the auction of sairat source viz., “Balanga River Sand Bed, Sakua” 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 the 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.1,30,000/-. 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, Sakua. 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. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the advertisement for auction of sand sairat of Balanga River Sand Bed, Sakua 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, Sakua 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 rules cannot exercise any powers dehors such rules. The statutory authority cannot transgress the boundaries of the statutory provisions in exercising the powers conferred therein nor can assume any power not provided in the said statutory rules. The authority has to travel within the four corners of the statutory provisions as any action or the decision taken in excess of the powers so conferred e