DUSMANT MALLICK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dusmant Mallick, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12879 of 2018 has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Tahasildar, Gondia-opposite party no.4 published a tender notice on 29.02.2020 vide Annexure-1 inviting bids for auction sale of Gopalpur sand quarry, Kasipur sand quarry, Ambapada-I sand quarry, Ambapada-II sand quarry, Dallar sand quarry and Chhatia quarry on a long term lease basis for a period of five years from the year 2020-21 to 2024-25. The present writ petitions relate to 'Dallar sand quarry', which was published according to the provisions of Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, fixing minimum charge of Rs.35/- per cm., additional charge of Rs.55/- per cm, total fixed price per cm. as Rs.90/-, minimum guaranteed quantity as 24,000 cum. per year, EMD as Rs.1,08,000/- and bank guarantee/IT return as Rs.21,60,000/-. The last date of submission of bid was 19.03.2020 and date of opening of bid was 20.03.2020. The date of publication of result of bid was 21.03.2020. In response to such notice, the petitioners along with three others, namely, Dusmant Mallick, Janardan Nath, H.K. Sahoo, N. Dhir, Jena Minerals and Tripurai Sahoo submitted their bids within the time specified. The bids were opened on 20.03.2020 by the Tahasildar, Gondia and a comparative chart was published vide Annexure-2 wherein Dusmant Mallick, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12879 of 2020 though shown as H-3, but his tender was allowed as highest bidder. So far as Jena Minerals is concerned, though shown as H-5, its tender was allowed as second highest bidder. Tripurari Sahoo-Opposite party no.5 in WP(C) Nos. 12879 and 17640 of 2020, though shown as H-1, his tender was rejected due to non-furnishing of required bank guarantee. Similarly, the tenders submitted by Janardan Nath and H.K. Sahoo were rejected on the ground of non-submission of required bank guarantee, though they had been shown as H-2 and H-6 respectively. So far as N. Dhir is concerned, his tender was rejected on the ground of non-submission of relevant documents, though he was shown as H-4.

(3.) Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12879 of 2020 strenuously urged that petitioner-Dusmant Mallick, who was shown as H-3 and whose tender was allowed treating to be highest bidder, as he had complied the requirements in Annexure-1, he should have been issued with work order in accordance with Odisha Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2016 to operate the sand quarry. But instead of issuing any work order in favour of the petitioner-Dusmant Mallick, opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Gondia cancelled the tender vide notice no.1104 dated 20.03.2020 by affixing the same in the notice board of the Tahasil Office, Gondia which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and Annexure A/4 to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.4. It is contended that after cancelling the tender on 20.03.2020, opposite party no.4 wrote letter dated 21.03.2020 to the Collector-cumControlling Authority, Dhenkanal for cancellation of the tender, as it was not done in order and therefore, sought permission for fresh auction as per law to avoid further litigation and legal complicacies in future. In response to same, the Collector, Dhenkanal vide letter dated 19.05.2020 called for an explanation as to why suitable action would not be taken against opposite party no.4 in accordance with law in the matter of negligence in duty, lack of revenue rules and regulations, carelessness in tender process for which there was controversial situation which resulted in loss of revenue. Thereafter, opposite party no.4 immediately accepted the deposit of bank guarantee filed by opposite party no.5- Tripurari Sahoo and selected him for awarding tender in his favour. Such action of opposite party no.4 to settle the auction in favour of opposite party no.5 is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. To substantiate his contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Monarch Infrastructure (P) Limited v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal corporation, 2000 5 SCC 287; West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd, 2001 2 SCC 451; Sorath Builders v. Shrejikrupa Buildcon Limited, 2009 11 SCC 9; and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Anoj Kumar Garwala,2019 SCCOnlineSC 89.