PRAFULLA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Odisha, Steel and Mines Department, for grant of quarry lease for a period of five years, issued notification dated 16.09.2014 inviting applications from the intending applicants in prescribed Form-J. Pursuant thereto, the AFR petitioner applied for grant of lease in respect of Laterite Stone Quarry at Bailo under Tahasildar, Gondia in the district of Dhenkanal. The petitioner, being the highest bidder, was called upon by the Tahasildar, Gondia, vide letter dated 21.03.2015, to deposit Rs.8,34,000/- as EMD in shape of demand draft in favour of the competent authority, and also to submit mining plan as well as environmental clearance within thirty days. In compliance thereof, petitioner deposited Rs.8,34,000/- towards EMD before opposite party no.3, along with the mining plan for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20 and environmental clearance issued by the State Improvement Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha dated 22.06.2015. Consequently, Government of Odisha executed a lease deed on 07.10.2015 in respect of Khata No.25, Plot No.110 of Kissam-Patharachatan measuring Ac.6.50/Hec.2.63 for Bailo Laterite Stone Quarry in Mouza-Bailo, for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20. Pursuant to such execution of lease deed, Tahasildar, Gondia, vide letter dated 09.10.2015, directed Revenue Inspector, Pingua for demarcation of stone quarry. Despite compliance of all formalities, when the land for operation of the stone quarry was not handed over, the petitioner on 22.12.2015 submitted a representation before the Collector, Dhenkanal that even though he had deposited the bid amount, yet he was not informed as to the full bid amount to be deposit before the authority and, on the other hand, illegal quarry was being carried out by other person, in the site leased out in his favour. On 26.12.2015, the petitioner submitted another representation to Tahasildar, Gondia requesting to inform him of the quarterly deposit of the amount to obtain the stone quarry. Not only that, for illegal quarry which was being carried out on the area leased out to the petitioner, he also lodged an FIR. Without considering the grievance of the petitioner made in the representation, he was issued with a show-cause notice on 25.01.2016, to which he gave reply on 08.02.2016. But Tahasildar, Gondia, by order dated 27.04.2016, cancelled the lease of the petitioner for violation of terms of the lease deed, hence this application.

(2.) Mr. A.A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no violation of conditions of the lease deed made by the petitioner and the allegations in the show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 against the petitioner were duly replied on 08.02.2016, but the same has not been considered and the lease deed has been cancelled primarily on the ground that the petitioner had carried on quarrying activity in the neighboring plot, which was not leased out to the petitioner and that there was no proper boundary pillars and display sign boards put up by the petitioner. It is contended that said allegations are wrong, and though a specific reply to the same had been given by the petitioner, the same has not been considered and as such, the order passed by the Tahasildar, Gondia is totally illegal and has been passed without application of mind and thus, is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has stated that the impugned order has been passed after complying the principle of natural justice and after considering the reply of the petitioner and as such, the cancellation order does not call for interference.