GANESWAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tahasildar, Bhuban-opposite party no.3 floated an auction notice dated 08.05.2014 for Sand Quarry operation at Kanapal Samil Mahulpal appertaining to Khata No.442, Plot No.4267 measuring an area Ac.1.000 decimals under the provisions of Orissa Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004. Pursuant to such notice, the petitioner participated in the auction sale held on 21.05.2014 vide Touzi Misc. Case No.11 of 2014-15 and being a successful bidder deposited the bid amount of Rs.9,51,591/- vide money receipts no.0870282 dated 21.05.2014 and no.0870308 dated 29.08.2014. The lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and opposite party no.3-Tahasildar-cum-competent authority on 30.05.2014, which was valid till 31.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was accorded permission for carrying out the quarrying operation on the terms and conditions specified in the lease agreement. The petitioner, after due execution of the lease agreement, was also issued with eight transit permit books to be filled up and handed over to the authorities for transmission of the minor minerals in accordance with provisions contained in Orissa Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the '2004 Rules'). But, before the petitioner could transact the business for the quarry operation, opposite party no.3 on 29.06.2014 directed the petitioner to return the transit permit books and restrained him from carrying on the operation of sand quarry on the ground that the Collector, Dhenkanal-opposite party no.2 had issued a letter on 29.06.2014 stating therein that in view of the direction of the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Odisha, the operation of all sand mining quarries below 5 hectares was to be stopped with immediate effect and the transit permit books issued to the auction holder were to be seized till receipt of further communication from the district office. As the petitioner could not operate the quarry after 29.06.2014, he sought for refund of the bid amount of Rs.9,51,591/- deposited at the time of auction sale or in alternative to allow him to operate the quarry in question. But, due to inaction of the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

(2.) Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner being the highest bidder, pursuant to auction sale held on 21.05.2014 in Tauzi Misc. Case No.11 of 2014-15, deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.9,51,591/- with opposite party no.3, and for no fault of his own the petitioner having been prevented from carrying on quarry operation, he is entitled to get refund of the bid amount deposited with opposite party no.3. He further contended that the petitioner was issued with eight number of transit permit books containing 50 pages each, (at the rate of 6 cu.m. of sand per page of such transit permit book) and the maximum capacity of sand that could be lifted vide one such transit permit book being 300 cu.m., the petitioner could have lifted 2400 cu.m. of sand in 8 transit permit books. But, the determination of the opposite parties that the petitioner has excavated 6548 cu.m. of sand on the basis of report given by the Revenue Inspector, who is a field functionary, is absolutely a misconceived one and without any basis and more so the said report has been received by opposite party no.3 on 06.04.2015, when the quarry operation has already been stopped pursuant to letter dated 29.06.2014. The manner of determination of excavation of 6548 cu.m. of sand after passing of rainy season could not have been done. Thereby, the authorities are deliberately and wilfully causing harassment to the petitioner in refunding his legitimate dues for non-operation of the quarry in question.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate admitted the factum of auction sale and execution of agreement with the petitioner by opposite party no.3 and acceptance of Rs.9,51,591/- towards bid amount on 21.05.2014 and 29.05.2014. But, he urged that the petitioner having excavated 6548 cu.m. of sand, as per the report of the field functionary dated 06.04.2015, he is not entitled to get refund of amount as claimed in the writ petition. While admitting that due to the letter under Annexure-4 issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal, the petitioner has stopped the mining operation with effect from 29.06.2014, he also urged that the petitioner having executed an agreement for operation of the sand quarry below 5 hectares, he was not eligible to operate the sand quarry allotted in his favour in the tender held in pursuance of Annexure-1 and, thereby, the transit permit books issued in favour of the petitioner have rightly been seized by the authorities. Consequentially, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authorities and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get refund of the amount as claimed in the writ petition.