Page 1 of 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P (C) No. 5021 of 2022

Prasant Kumar Patra

…..

Petitioner

Mr. G. Mishra, Adv.

Vs.

Tahasildar, K. Nuagaon and others

…..

Opposite parties

Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, ASC

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

05.04.2022

Order No.

02.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

3.

The petitioner, who claims to be the holder of the auction

conducted on 11.04.2018 by opposite party no.1-Tahasildar, K.

Nuagaon, Kandhamal, having not been allowed to operate the

sand quarry, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order

dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani

under Annexure-5 under Rule 27 (16) of OMMC Rules, 2016, as

well as the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Revenue

Divisional

Commissioner,

Berhampur

vide

Annexure-6

confirming the order passed by the Collector, and to issue

direction to opposite party no.3 to permit him to operate the quarry

lease for five years from the date of actual operation.

4.

Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner was granted with the sand quarry

lease, namely, Kudutali sand quarry of Nuagaon Tahasil for the

Page 2 of 10

year 2018-19 to 2022-23 for an area of 5 Hec. Accordingly, on

being called upon, he executed the lease agreement vide

Annexure-3 dated 30.04.2018 for a period of five years. But in

spite of the agreement executed by the petitioner, he was not

allowed to operate the quarry. Therefore, the petitioner

approached the Tahasildar seeking permission to operate the

quarry. As a consequence thereof, clarification was sought by the

Tahasildar, vide letter dated 24.08.2018 addressed to Addl.

Magistrate, Kandhamal. But the Collector, vide order dated

18.12.2019, cancelled the quarry leased granted in favour of the

petitioner, by contending that the entire bid process of finalization

of Bagada sand bed and Kudutuli sand bed, which was settled in

favour of the petitioner, was null and void and it was done

violating OMMC Rules, 2016, and further instructed the

Tahasildar to go for a fresh advertisement for lease of the above

sources. Against the said order, though the petitioner preferred

appeal bearing OMMC Appeal No.02 of 2021 before the R.D.C.,

Berhampur, but the appellate authority confirmed the order passed

by the Collector, vide order dated 30.11.2021 under Annexure-6.

Hence this writ petition.

5.

Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

contended that the lease having been executed without following

the procedure as envisaged under Rule-27 of Odisha Minor

Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, when clarification was sought

by the petitioner, the Collector, after applying its mind held that

the entire bid process of finalization of Bagada sand bed and

Kudutuli sand bed was null and void, as it was done violating the

OMMC Rules, 2016, and accordingly directed the Tahasildar to

Page 3 of 10

go for a fresh advertisement for lease of the sources. Against the

order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred appeal

before the R.D.C., Berhampur, who confirmed the order passed by

the Collector. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been

committed by the authorities in passing such orders, so as to

warrant interference of this Court.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the records, this Court finds that, so far as Bagada and

Kudutuli sand beds are concerned, no advertisement was issued by

the authority inviting bids from the intending bidders. As such,

without doing so, the Tahasildar, K. Nuagaon had issued Form-F

under Annexure-1 dated 11.04.2018 in favour of the petitioner to

execute the lease deed. Pursuant thereto, Annexure-3 was

executed in favour of the p