IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.18244 of 2024

Debidutta Mohanty …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior

Advocate assisted by

Mr. J.R. Deo, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. Bimbisar Dash,

Additional Government

Advocate for State

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

J U D G M E N T

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 11^th August, 2025

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant case has a checkered history as the parties are litigating over their rights in this Court and even on one occasion

have approached the apex Court.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, pursuant to the auction notice for grant of lease published on 8^th January 2018, the petitioner along with other intending bidders offered his bid by quoting a price, which does not match with the other intending bidders and the petitioner was shown as a third highest bidder. The first highest bidder was offered a lease for Subhadrapur sand sairat, but she did not adhere to the statutory requirement, which rendered her ineligible as defaulter in compliance of the terms and conditions embodied therein. The second highest bidder was then offered to match the price quoted by the first highest bidder and in the event he accord his consent and accept the said price, the lease may be executed in his favour. Undeniably, the second highest bidder consented to the price quoted by the first highest bidder and in terms of the provisions contained in Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules, 2016), the lease was executed by the Tahasildar in his favour. The first highest bidder filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9023 of 2019 before this Court assailing the order of cancelling her bid and selecting the second highest bidder as successful tenderer. Amidst the pendency of the said writ petition, an interim order in the form of a status quo was granted by the High Court, which was subsequently vacated. The moment the interim order stood vacated, the second highest bidder filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.22660 of 2019 before this Court seeking a direction upon the competent authority i.e. the Tahasildar, Sadar for execution of the lease deed in his favour, which came to be executed on 1^st January, 2020. Immediately, after the execution of the lease deed, the first highest bidder filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.951 of 2020 challenging the action of the Tahasildar in executing the lease in favour of the second highest bidder wherein an interim order was passed restraining the authorities to execute the lease deed in favour of the second highest bidder, which was later on vacated with the rider that the operation of the lease shall be subject to the result of the pending writ petition.

3. The present writ petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.3326 of 2021 raising an issue on the solvency certificate issued in favour of the second highest bidder, which came to be disposed of on 4^th February, 2021 with the direction upon the Collector, Cuttack to consider his representation wherein such issue was raised. During the currency of the said representation pending before the Collector, the present writ petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.14241 of

2021, which came to be disposed of on 19^th April, 2021 upon recording the fact that the Tahasildar, Narasingpur has cancelled the solvency certificate of the second highest bidder, which is challenged before the appellate authority. Consequently, the second highest bidder, who was permitted to operate the sairat was prevented from such operation as the solvency certificate, which is one of the essential conditions in granting the lease, was cancelled by the Tahasildar.

4. The facts