RAKESH KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who was successful in sand sairat auction conducted in the year 2016-17 and was awarded the said sairat for a period of five years has come to this Court in the petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow to operate the quarry lease for a period of five years commencing from 4/12/2020 i.e. the date on which the lease deed was executed and registered. He has also sought the quashing of an order dtd. 19/4/2021of the Tahasildar, Garadpur, Kendrapara stating that since the period of lease was going to conclude on 25/4/2021 the Petitioner should stop lifting sand from the source after the said date.

(2.) In the present petition notice was issued on 4/6/2021. In response to the notice, counter affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar, Garadpur (Opposite Party No.4) inter alia stating that the lease deed itself clearly mentions that the lease period is from 2016-17 till 2020-21 which is consistent with the auction notice. Reference is also made to the 4th para (terms and conditions) in the lease deed which states that the period of five years would be the years 2016-17 till 2020-21 and further that the period shall continue till the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) permission is valid and shall end on 25/4/2021. Therefore, notwithstanding that Rule 61(2) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 ('OMMC Rules, 2004') which states that the date of commencement of the period for which a license/lease is granted "shall be the date on which a duly executed deed is registered", it is sought to be contended by the Opposite Parties that since the lease deed itself clearly specifies that the lease period end on 25/4/2021 and the Petitioner has signed the same with "open eyes" he should deemed to have accepted the terms and cannot claim that he is entitled to operate the sairat source for five years from the date of the lease. In the counter affidavit it is sought to be contended that the Petitioner has been paying royalty even prior to the date of the registration of the lease deed and that he has been operating the lease.

(3.) Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the hand points out that the Petitioner was obliged to pay the minimum guaranteed royalty but was unable to operate the lease prior to the date of registration i.e. 4/12/2020. This is the reason why the Petitioner approached this Court in the first instance. Mr. Rath also refers to Rule 61(2) of the OMMC Rules, 2004 to urge that the five-year period has to commence from the date of the registration of the lease agreement.