DURYODHAN SINGH Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR, PANPOSH, ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these cases who are the lease holders for extraction of sand and stone from the sairats in question are before this Court placing reliance upon Rule 36 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short, "the MMC Rules, 2004") for extending the period of lease by 3 months 3 days, 3 months 96 days, 3 months 4 days and 2 months 15 days respectively in respect of the leases covered in all these writ petitions contending that there was delay in confirmation of the bid submitted by the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to deposit 75% of the bid amount. Further, the petitioners were compelled to come before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the competent authority insisting upon the petitioners to pay the stamp duty. So, the delay in executing the agreement of lease of sand and stone sairats is attributable to the competent authority. As per Rule 36 of the Rules, the lease will be for a period of one year from the date of execution of the lease agreement in favour of the lessee. The lesser period of lease from the date of execution of the agreement expires on 31st March, 2012 on the basis of the time stipulated in the lease agreements and on the basis of the which the leases of sand and stone sairats have been awarded in favour of the petitioners for extraction of sand and stone from the sairats and quarry in question. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay caused as mentioned above in each one of the petitions is not at the instance of the petitioners but at the instance of the competent authority in sending late confirmation of the bids and further insisting upon the petitioners to get the lease deeds registered before the registering authority. The same have been quashed at the instance of the petitioners. Therefore, the delay of nearly about two months in getting quashed the notices issued to the petitioners calling upon them to get the lease agreements registered cannot be attributed against the competent authority.

(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate Mr. R.K. Mohapatra submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief extension of period of lease on the basis of placing reliance upon Rule 36 of the Rules. Rule 36 cannot be applicable to the fact situation of the case for the reason that the petitioners have agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement and thereafter coming before this Court seeking for extension of the lease period of one from the date of execution of the lease agreements year as provided under Rule 36 but not by end of 31st March, 2012 is not permissible in law as they have agreed upon the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

(3.) WITH reference to the above rival factual and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties it would be just and proper for us to refer to Rules, 36, 48 and 53 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 which read thus: "Rule 36 : Validity of auction - The auction shall be valid for a maximum period of one year from the date of execution of auction agreement. Rule 48: Payment of bid amount - The successful bidder on receipt of confirmation shall deposit the balance seventy five percent of the bid amount within thirty days from the date of confirmation of the bid. Rule 53 : Agreement - An agreement containing the terms and conditions of auction sale, quarrying operations, etc., shall be executed by the successful bidders and the competent authority as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp Act, 1899 within seven days from the date of payment of bid amount in full."