DILLIP KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada, Udala is competent to take any decision or pass any direction after the amendment having brought in Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short 'OMMC Rules, 2016') by virtue of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 (in short 'Amended Rules, 2022'), which was duly published in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary dtd. 28/12/2022.

(2.) A prelude to the litigation involving the question of law as indicated hereinabove is adumbrated for the purpose of clarity and brevity. Pursuant to the auction notice for two sand sairats, i.e. Dighi-2 Sand bed and Parikhitpur Sand bed, the petitioner offered his bid and was adjudged as the highest bidder. However, the authority could not proceed to settle the query in favour of the petitioner because of intervening litigations ensued before this Court raising an issue with regard to the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner and restrained order passed in such litigations. Amidst the pendency of the litigations before this Court, the amendments were brought into the OMMC Rules, 2016 duly notified/published in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary on 27/12/2022. By virtue of such amendments effected by the Amended Rules, 2022, the definition of the competent authority has undergone a sea change so also the powers to deal with the mining issues across the State.

(3.) The point as indicated in the preceding paragraph of the judgment gets attracted after the litigations concerning the said sand sairats was finally disposed of on 21/6/2024. Yet, the Tahasildar and/or the Sub-Collector proceeded to take a decision in respect of the auction held prior to the Amended Rules that too on the basis of directions/instructions issued by the Mining Officer who was competent to deal with such aspect on the strength of the Amended Rules intervened in the interregnum.