DHIRENDRA PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner Dhirendra Patnaik has made the following prayer:

(2.) In fact, the petitioner challenges the legality of the purported auction of forty eight truck-load of chips worth about Rs. 1.5 lakhs at a throw-away price of Rs. 27, 132/- by the opposite parties. The petitioner claiming to be a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering is stated to have started his business of quarry lease duly sanctioned by the State Government. For the lease, royalty was fixed. The lease was however cancelled on the ground of default in payment of royalty. It is alleged that subsequently on calculation, the excess amount of royalty paid by the petitioner was refunded to him. Out of malice, the D.F.O., opposite party No. 3 and his subordinates seized the petitioner's unit on 6.1 1.90 through the Range Officer, opposite party No. 4. After due enquiry it was found that the seizure was improper for which the Principal Conservator of Forest, Orissa directed to release the seized materials of the petitioner. Thereafter the D.F.O. by his letter dated 19.6.1992 directed the Range Officer opposite party No. 4 to return/release the forty eight truck-load of stone products of the petitioner. On receipt of the said letter of the D.F.O., the Range Officer, opposite party No. 4, informed the D.F.O. that the petitioner was ready to take the delivery, but without specific measurement of the produce it was not possible on his part to deliver the same. It is alleged that the D.F.O., opposite party No. 3, did not take steps to return the materials of the petitioner for which the petitioner was compelled to file O.J.C. No. 357 of 1993 before this Court. By order dated 28.7.93 the said writ application was disposed of by this Court recording that the petitioner was entitled to return of his seized articles. It was made clear that the petitioner would move the D.F.O. for redress when he would appear before the Range Officer for verification of the materials offered to him. If the authorities accept the petitioner's stand as correct, obviously they would take necessary steps to pay price of the materials which cannot he returned to the petitioner. It was made clear, according to the petitioner, that the seizure of his materials was irregular and illegal. It is alleged that the materials of the petitioner so seized were sold in auction and he was not informed about it. His presence was deliberately avoided in order to make personal gain out of the purported auction. Making such allegations the petitioner has come to this Court for the reliefs as indicated above.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the opposite parties by filing a counter-affidavit. The allegations of the petitioner have been denied. It is stated that in terms of the order of this Court in O.J.C. No. 367/93 it was made clear that if the authorities accepted the petitioner's stand as correct, they would make payment of the price of the materials which cannot be returned to the petitioner. The letter of the concerned Range Officer was beyond any shadow of doubt or dispute. It is stated that because of shortage of bidder. the auction sale was deferred four times, i.e. on 17.2.95, 12.4.95, 26.4.95 and 8.5.95 and then finally it was held on 8-5-96. The D.F.O. communicated to the petitioner to accept the auction price of Rs. 27,132/- in respect of forty-eight truck-load of stone products. The D.F.O. also intimated the petitioner that the quality of the minor mineral was not good at the time of auction and there was possibility of further deterioration. Further it was stated by the D.F.O. that on an eye estimation, thirty-five truck-load of products were seized.