SURYAKANTA HABODA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tahasildar, Shamakhunta in the district of Mayurbhanj, opposite party no.4 issued a notice for long term quarry lease bearing no.652 dated 13.04.2015 inviting applications in Form-J in triplicate along with required documents from the interested bidders in sealed covers under the provisions of Odisha Minor Minerals Concession AFR 2 (Amendment) Rules, 2014. Pursuant to such notice, applications duly filled in sealed covers in respect of TMC No.16/2015-16 of Suniapal Sand Bed Sairat Sources of Khata No.74, Plot No.319-322 of area in hector 5.65 were submitted by different bidders, which were received on 27.04.2015, and the sealed covers were opened on 28.04.2015. In respect of said sand quarry, five persons had participated in the proceedings, of whom one Tarakanta Mohanty had offered highest bid price at the rate of Rs.258/- per c.m., the bid of the petitioner was the second highest at the rate of Rs.185/- per c.m. and opposite party no.5 was the third highest bidder, who had offered Rs.169/- per c.m. Though Tarakanta Mohanty was the highest bidder, due to want of certain documents, namely, affidavit, treasury challan and solvency certificate, a notice was issued on 29.04.2015 directing him to submit such documents on or before 08.05.2015 along with EMD. Since the bid was being undertaken in respect of Suniapal Sand Bed along with other sairat sources, the highest bidders of respective sources were required to furnish the wanting documents, which had been indicated in the aforesaid notice. Tarakanta Mohanty having not furnished the documents, as required, on or before 08.05.2015 along with EMD, on 3 08.05.2015 itself vide Annexure-5 the bid was settled in favour of the 3rd highest bidder, opposite party no.5 at the rate of Rs.169/- per c.m. and he was directed to submit EMD, prepare mining plan and get environmental clearance within three months. The petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, having offered the price of Rs.185/- per c.m., being aggrieved by such notice dated 08.05.2015 in Annexure-5 settling Suniapal Sand Bed in favour opposite party no.5, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, the sand quarry in question has been settled in favour of opposite party no.5, who was the third highest bidder and had offered lesser price than the petitioner. In that view of the matter, opposite party no.4 has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, which hits Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State has stated that pursuant to the notice dated 29.04.2015, the bidders were required to submit the wanting documents on or before 08.05.2015 along with the EMD, and the same having not been complied with by the petitioner, the 4 authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity in settling the sources in favour of opposite party no.5, the third highest bidder.