The court clarified that appeals under statutory provisions must be based on 'date of communication' rather than mere knowledge, ensuring procedural fairness in adjudicating appeals.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The writ petition challenging the order dated 9^th June, 2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela in rejecting R.A. No.14 of 2023 is filed by the unsuccessful bidder primarily on the ground that the appellate authority has committed grave error in rejecting the said appeal solely on the ground of limitation.

2. The sequel of events emanating from the record would reveal that pursuant to the auction notice dated 4^th March, 2022 published by the opposite party No.4 for settlement of Teterkala Sand Bed Quarry under Biramitrapur Tahasil of Sundargarh district, the petitioner offered his bid. The bid was opened on 21^st March, 2022 and the opposite party No.5 was declared as a successful bidder. The lease deed was also executed in favour of the said opposite party. Subsequently, the petitioner, after coming to know of several discrepancies, disparities and the illegalities committed by the authorities, applied for a certified copy of the entire order sheet concerning the said auction, which was initially kept in abeyance but subsequent to the persuasion including the orders passed by this Court, the certified copy was handed over. After noticing the irregularities and/or illegalities, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5473 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 6^th March, 2023 as the petitioner has a remedy by filing an appeal under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, 'OMMC Rules') and, therefore, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue such remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said liberty having granted, the appeal was filed before the Sub-Collector being R.A. No.14 of 2023 on 23^rd March, 2023 and the said appeal was kept pending for more than a year until the first order was passed on 30^th July, 2024 directing the parties to appear and argue on the next date. On 13^th August, 2024 the Sub-Collector after recording the facts emerged from the record categorically observed that the competent authority has not categorically observed the formalities as per the rules before going for selection of the successful bidder in the said auction and at the same time, the highest bidder (now lessee) has also violated the basic principles framed for the auction process, but even after such observations as narrated above, the said appellate authority being a Sub-Collector, Panposh arrived at the final conclusion that there is no scope to consider the prayer of the petitioner due to lack of jurisdiction. The said order was further assailed by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.26800 of 2024 which was disposed of on 12^th May, 2025. Interestingly, a plea was taken by the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) that the administrative control of the minor mineral including the sand sairat has been transferred to the Steel and Mines Department, Government of Odisha vide notification dated 28^th December, 2022 and, therefore, on the date of the filing of the appeal, the Sub-Collector was not competent to continue with the appeal and decide the same.

3. Learned AGA also supported the stand of the petitioner that the order rendered by the Sub-Collector is without jurisdiction and taking into account the aforesaid stand taken by the respective parties, the writ petition was disposed of quashing and setting aside the said order dated 13^th August, 2023 and direction was passed upon the Sub-Collector, Panposh to transmit the records pertaining to R.A. No.14 of 2023 to the Dy. Director of Mines, Sundargarh. It was further observed that the said appellate authority shall adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law and the parties were permitted to take all the pleas relating to fact or law as may be. The impugned order passed by the said authority is not on the merit but on the technicalities namely applying the period of limitation as a barrier in invoking the jurisdiction.

4. It is beyond cav