BINOD KUMAR PATEL Vs. P DILLESSWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this application challenges the grant of lease in respect of sand quarry in favour of opposite party No. 1 by the opposite party No. 2 as well as the order passed by the appellant authority, opposite party No. 1

(2.) WE have heard Shri S.C. Ghose. learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.l in spite of service of notice.

(3.) FROM Annexure -1 it appears that the application filed by the petitioner in Form -A was registered as M.L. Case No. 8/2000. In the said application the petitioner had stated that he has financial resources to invest Rs. 50,000/ - and can raise 10,000 CM. of sand annually. All the requisite documents, such as. Nationality Certificate, Clearances from Sales Tax and Income Tax Department and other required documents were in proper form. Opposite party No. 1 submitted an application for lease of sand quarry which was registered as M.L. Case No. 9/ML/2000. In his application in form -A he offered to extract 3500/10,500 CM. for three years. Accepting the offer made by the opposite party No.l order was passed granting lease in favour of the opposite party No. 2, whereas the application of the petitioner was rejected. Challenging the said grant of lease in favour of opposite party No. 1 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Jharsuguda which was dismissed in Annexure -5 holding that the offer made by the opposite party No.l was higher than that of the petitioner.