AMARJOTHI GRANITE PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Govt. of Orissa dated 7-1-2005 granting quarry lease of 8.944 hects. in village Bhagabanpur of Ganjam district in favour of Opposite Party No. 4, M/s. Ajax Petro, the petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashing the above order annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 7.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that it is a private limited company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 and it deals with all types of stones and rocks used for decorative and industrial purposes. It also undertakes export of such decorative stones and further, it holds quarry lease in the State of Orissa mainly near Berhampur area in the district of Ganjam. The petitioner has alleged that in spite of the fact that its granite processing plant has been registered by the District Industries Centre, Berharnpur, Dist. Ganjam and its application dated 3-7-1999 for grant of quarry lease to an extent of 25.27 hects. in the village Bhagabanpur has been forwarded to the Government on being recommended by the Mining Officer, Ganjam Circle, Berharnpur, under the letter Annexure-3, but in the meantime, without disposing of the application of the petitioner, the Govt. has decided to grant quarry lease to the opposite Party No. 4 to an extent of 8.944 hects. which overlaps the area for which grant of quarry lease has been recommended in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. M. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opp. Party No. 4 made an application for grant of quarry lease to an extent of 37.15 hects. over plot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 under Khata No. 215 in Mouza Bhagabanpur, Dist. Ganjam. On such application, the Mining Officer in proceeding No. 388/1990 has decided to grant the said quarry lease in favour of opposite party No. 4 but however, there was no lease executed in favour of opposite Party No. 4. He, therefore, contends that in view of the Rule 10 of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990, if no lease deed is executed within the time fixed, the Controlling Authority may revoke the order, cancel the lease and forfeit the application fee. Hence, he submitted that as no lease deed was executed in favour of the opposite party No. 4 within the time stipulated, it would be deemed that the said order for granting quarry lease in favour of the opposite party No. 4 passed on 1-2-1990, has been cancelled. On that basis, Mr. Kanungo submitted that it was no more open to the Government to review the said decision and pass an order as under Annexure-7 to grant quarry lease in favour of the opposite Party No. 4 over a portion of the area for which the application of the petitioner has been recommended.