SRINIVAS SATAPATHY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 14/10/2022 under Annexure-12 passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur in Quarry Lease Appeal Case No.1/22, as well as the office order dtd. 18/1/2021 (wrongly dated as 1/1/2021) passed by opposite party no.2-Colletor, Rayagada under Annexure-8, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to grant the quarry lease in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Tahasildar, Gunupur-opposite party no.4, issued a notice on 8/9/2020 inviting applications for grant of Turukaniguda Sand Bed under Gunupur Tahasil on long term lease of five years through auction. Pursuant to such auction notice, seven bidders submitted their applications in sealed cover within the time specified. Opposite party no.5, having quoted highest price, was found as successful bidder, whereas the petitioner was found as second highest bidder. Consequentially, opposite party no.4 issued notice in Form-F to opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 25/9/2020, for conveying the acceptance of the terms and conditions and for depositing the required amount within a period of 15 days. Though the said letter was received on 8/10/2020 by opposite party no.5, but he neither deposited the required amount nor did convey the acceptance of the terms and conditions within a period of 15 days, as provided under Rule-27(7) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short "OMMC Rules, 2016"). Therefore, opposite party no.4 issued a letter to opposite party no.2, on 29/10/2020, requesting for necessary order to issue intimation to the second highest bidder to convey the acceptance, as per Rule-27(9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. As no reply was received thereto, again opposite party no.4 issued another letter on 10/11/2020 to opposite party no.2 requesting him for necessary order to issue intimation to the second highest bidder, the petitioner herein. Thereafter, opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 12/11/2020, intimated opposite party no.4 that he has deposited the amount, as per the notice dtd. 25/9/2020, and that the payment was made on 2/11/2020, i.e., much after expiry of the stipulated period, which was duly acknowledged by the office of the opposite party no.4. But, in the meantime, the petitioner represented opposite party no.4, vide letter dtd. 12/11/2020, requesting for permission to deposit the bid amount, as he was the second higher bidder. Consequentially, opposite party no.4 forwarded the letters of both the petitioner and opposite party no.5 to opposite party no.2, vide letter dtd. 24/11/2020, for such permission, but the same was not acted upon and, as such, the Collector-cum-Controlling Authority directed the Tahasildar-opposite party no.4 to allow opposite party no.5, the highest bidder, as he has deposited the amount and there is huge difference between the amount deposited by opposite party no.5 vis-a-vis the petitioner. Consequentially, the EMD deposited by the petitioner was released in his favour on 28/7/2021, on the basis of which the petitioner could know that his bid has not been accepted, though he being the second highest bidder is eligible to get the auction as per Rule-27(9) of OMMC Rules, 2016.

(3.) Mr. Tanmay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that admittedly opposite party no.5 was the highest bidder but he did not comply with the provisions contained under Rule-27(7) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 by conveying his acceptance of the terms and conditions and depositing the amount calculated therein within 15 days. Since the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period of 15 days, no right accrued in favour of opposite party no.5 to get the lease. It is further contended that as per Rule-27(9) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, on default of opposite party no.5, who is the highest bidder, the petitioner, being the next highest bidder, the competent authority should have issued him intimation, in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule-27, calling upon him to convey his acceptance. As such, pursuant to such provision, there was no intimation to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner, being the second highest bidder, filed appeal before the appellate authority and also undertook to match the bid price offered by opposite party no.5, who is the highest bidder. But the same was not taken into consideration and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, in view of Rule-27(10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. It is contended that the highest bidder, having failed to comply the provisions contained under the OMMC Rules, 2016 within the time specified, cannot be granted the lease and, on the other hand, the petitioner, being the second highest bidder, has a right to be considered for allotment of the lease in his favour. But the appellate authority, without considering the same and only relying upon the observation of the Collector-cumControlling Authority, dismissed the appeal, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.