LAWS(ORI)-2022-5-141

MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On May 12, 2022
Madan Mohan Pradhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the letter dtd. 20/12/2021 issued by the Tahasildar, Kashinagar under Annexure-6, by which he has been intimated that the Collector, Gajapati-cum-Controlling Authority has cancelled the bid of Khandava Sand Quarry in terms of Rule 27 (10) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, owing to the reason, as communicated by the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati in his letter dtd. 17/12/2021.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that a notice bearing no. 4898/Sairat was issued on 20/9/2021 by the Tahasildar, Kashinagar-opposite party no.4 inviting applications from the intending bidders to participate in the auction for grant of long-term lease of different sairat sources under Kashinagar Tahasil in the State of Odisha, for a period of 5 years from the financial year 2021-22 to 2025-26, as per the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short "OMMC Rules, 2016"). In the said notice, Khandava Sand Quarry, which was one of the sairat sources, had been put to auction. As per the said notice, interested bidders were required to apply in Form-M enclosing the required documents in a sealed cover and drop the same in the drop box at the Tahasil office between 8/10/2021 and 3/11/2021. It was also indicated that applications will not be accepted after the due date and time, i.e., 5.30 PM of 3/11/2021. The name of the sairat source and number of the sairat case were to be reflected in the envelope. On 5/11/2021 at 11.00 p.m. scrutiny of the applications for opening of the bids in presence of the lease applicants or their authorized representatives was to be conducted and incomplete applications were to be rejected. Applications received after 5.30 p.m. of 3/11/2021 were not to be taken into consideration. The Competent Authority and the Collector, Gajapati shall have the right to cancel or suspend the auction without assigning any reason thereof.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that while passing the order impugned no reason has been assigned nor the Tahasildar, Kashinagar has communicated any reason to the petitioner. Furthermore, Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 provides that if the second highest bidder has quoted unusually low price in comparison to the highest bidder of the same source or other sources in the vicinity, the Competent Authority may bring it to the notice of the Controlling Authority, who, after proper verification and with due justification, may cancel the bid and direct for fresh auction. If that be so, the provisions of Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 has not been complied with and, as such, the cancellation made is without application of mind.