DILLIP KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Date of hearing and judgment: 9/5/2022 DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, being the 2ndhighest bidder, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to opposite party no.3 to issue "Intimation to Successful Bidder" in his favour in terms of Rule 27(9) of the Odisha Page 1 of 18 Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, in respect of Pankapal-II Sand Quarry, as the highest bidder could not be able to deposit the security amount in due time.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that a notice bearing no. 4029 was issued on 31/12/2021 by opposite party no.3 inviting applications from the intending bidders to participate in the auction of different Sand Quarries, including Pankapal-II Sand Quarry (Bramani River Sand Belt) of Mouza-Pankapal, Khata No.224, Plot No. 1089, Area Ac. 12.30 for a period of five years under the provisions of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short "OMMC Rules, 2016") and Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017. The details of the Sairat Sources, which were notified to put to auction are given hereunder:-

(3.) Mr. S.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that if opposite party no.4 could not deposit the security amount within the time specified, then right accrued in favour of the Page 6 of 18 petitioner, pursuant to Rule 27 (9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 and, as such, the sand quarry should have been settled in his favour. Instead of doing so, the Tahasildar, Danagadi extended the time to deposit the security amount, which is not within his jurisdiction, thereby, the acceptance of security amount within the extended period cannot also sustain. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for direction to opposite party no.3 for allotment of the sand quarry in question in favour of the petitioner.