NARAYAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

(2.) Auction was held for grant of lease of sand sairat in question, and the highest bidder having backed out, the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, as he was the 2nd highest bidder. The period of lease was five years. Admittedly, the lease deed was executed on 22.08.2015 and registered on 11.09.2015 and the petitioner started operating the sand sairat after execution of the lease deed. Primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur, by which the lease of sand sairat has been determined and the petitioner has been restrained from carrying on the mining activities.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The short submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is a non-speaking one, inasmuch as it does not specify as to which condition of the lease deed has been violated by the petitioner and as to how the petitioner has been shown to have extracted and removed minerals beyond the approved mining plan. Two show cause notices dated 23.08.2016 and 24.09.2016 are said to have been served on the petitioner, to which the petitioner is also said to have submitted his reply. In paragraph-21 of the writ petition, it is specifically denied that any such show cause notices, as mentioned in the impugned order, had been served on the petitioner and it is stated that the only show cause notice given to the petitioner was one dated 02.08.2016, to which the petitioner had already submitted his reply and the same has admittedly not been considered in the impugned order.