Orissa High Court
WP(C)/32991/2020 on 23 December, 2020
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
W.P.(C) No. 32991 OF 2020
02. 23.12.2020 This matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 12.10.2020 under Annexure-24
issued by opposite party no.1 rejecting the representation
dated 25.08.2020 for extension of lease period in respect of
Tukuna sand quarry.
The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the
Tahasildar, Anandapur issued an advertisement dated
02.02.2015 putting different sand beds (Sairat) of river
Baitarani for long term lease including sand sairat "Tukuna"
for five years. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner
along with others participated in the auction process and he
being the highest bidder was asked to deposit the bid
amount for grant of long term lease and also comply other
formalities as per the rules by submitting mining plan and
environmental clearance obtaining from the competent
authority. After complying the formalities, the lease deed
was executed on 11.02.2016. Thereafter, he started
operation of the quarry in question. But the villagers of
Tukuna did not allow the petitioner to lift the sand from the
sairat in question and caused problem. Consequentially, the
petitioner approached the Collector and District Magistrate,
Keonjhar as well as Sub-Collector and Tahasildar,
Anandapur seeking their interference and to provide police
2
protection for lifting of sand. In response to such
representation, the Tahasildar caused an enquiry through a
responsible officer, who submitted a report contending that
the petitioner's allegation is correct. In spite of such report,
since no action was taken, the petitioner could not take any
effective steps to operate the quarry in question. Again, the
petitioner approached the authority by filing representation.
Consequentially, a committee was constituted which was
directed by the competent authority to take necessary steps,
but due to inaction, the petitioner was constrained to file
FIR before the IIC, Ghasipura Police Station on 20.07.2016
and having failed from different quarters, he was
constrained to file W.P.(C) No. 1649 of 2017 seeking
direction to the opposite parties to give necessary assistance
to him for operation of quarry and to extend the period of
lease for the period he was unable to operate the sand sairat
due to disturbance caused by the people as well as
restriction imposed by opposite party no.5. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.02.2019
directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation before
the appropriate authority agitating his grievance within two
weeks and the same was directed to be disposed of by the
appropriate authority within four weeks from the date of
receiving such representation. Accordingly, the petitioner
submitted representation on 14.03.2019 to the Tahasildar,
Anandapur requesting him to extend the lease period. The
Tahasildar, Anandapur heard the grievance of the petitioner
in Sairat Case No. 5 of 2015-16 and vide order dated
3
10.05.2019 observed that that lessee has actually been
obstructed since the outset of the sand quarry. But as the
deed of agreement was signed on 11.02.2016, in view of the
provisions contained under Rule 43(2) of OMMC Rules, 2016
the lease was valid till 2019-20 and in the meantime four
years have elapsed, therefore, submitted his opinion before
the opposite party no.3- Sub-Collector, Anandapur for
further approval of the Collector-opposite party no.2, but the
same was rejected on 26.07.2019 and the prayer of the
petitioner to refund the royalty could not be made within six
months before the competent authority, as the petitioner
failed to file application before the competent authority as
per the provisions contained under Rule 63 of OMMC Rules,
2016. Thereby, proposal was given to the Tahasildar for
fresh tender after expiry of the lease period. Vide letter dated
29.05.2020, the Tahasildar intimated to the petitioner that
in view of the provision contained in Rule 43(2) of OMMC
Rules, 2016, the Government of Odisha in Revenue and
Disaster Management Department has allowed extension of
lease for the year 2020-21, and directed the petitioner to
deposit a sum of Rs.4,71,753/-. Though the petitioner has
operated the quarry till 02.12.2019, although the period of
lease was 2015-16 to 2019-20, but benefit has to be granted
to him for the period he was not able to operate. For that he
approached the authority by filing a representation, but the
same was rejected vide order dated 12.10.2020 in Annexure-
24 stating inter alia that the grievance petition dated
25.08.2020 of the petitioner for extension of lease period for
4
one year i.e., for the year 2020-21 on the ground that non-
operationalization of Tukuna sand quarry from 2015 though
lease period was for the period 2015-19 does not come
under the purview of OMMC Rules, 2016. Hence this
application.
Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the order impugned has been passed without
application of mind and more so without applying the
principle of natural justice. As such, the same has been
passed without giving any reasons and the order is very
cryptic one.
Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for
the State contended that the reason assigned in the order
dated 12.10.2020 in Annexure-24 appears to be a cryptic
one. Thereby, the matter may be remitted back to the
authority concerned for reconsideration of the
representation filed on 25.08.2020 for extension of lease
period, in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court finds that admittedly,
the petitioner was granted on lease the sand sairat in
question for a period of five years, which was expired in the
year 2019. On the request made by the petitioner, he was
granted one year extension, which is going to expire in the
year 2021. But the petitioner contended that he should have
been granted extension for a period of further five years, as
he was not able to lift the sand from the sairat in question
during the period 2015-19, except December, 2019 and to
5
that extend he has made a representation on 25.08.2020 in
Annexure-23, but the authority-opposite party no.1 rejected
the same saying that it does not come under the purview of
OMMC Rules, 2016.
It is well settled that reasons being a necessary
concomitant to passing an order, the appellate authority can
thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by
furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to
those given by the original authority.
In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974
SC 87, it has been held that reasons are the links between
the materials on which certain conclusions are based and
the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is
applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is
purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational
nexus between the facts considered and conclusions
reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the
conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is
also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its
mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of
showing a person that he is receiving justice.
Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in
Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development
Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and
Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development
Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.
6
In view of such position, since no reasons have been
assigned, the order dated 12.10.2020 in Annexure-24
cannot sustain in the eye of law, accordingly, the same is
hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the
opposite party no.1 for reconsideration by affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six
weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
..............................
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
.................... P. Patnaik, J Ajaya