Orissa High Court
WP(C)/28273/2020 on 23 February, 2021
W.P.(C) No.28273 of 2020
07. 23.02.2021 1. Heard Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the action of the Opposite Parties in denying the Petitioner the grant of the sand quarry lease in respect of Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry, even though she was the highest bidder.
3. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner was the highest bidder in the sand quarry auction in respect of (i) Kishannagar Thanagada Mahanadi Sand Quarry, (ii) Khentala Mahanadi Sand Quarry and (iii) Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry.
4. In terms of the Rule 27 (4) (iii) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, an applicant having a net worth less than ten percent of the value of the estimated mineral resources shall not eligible to participate in the auction process for grant of quarry lease.
5. From the counter affidavit filed, it appears that the Petitioner had submitted a solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.1,31,000,00/- only, which was inadequate for all the above three sand sources. The Petitioner was declared as successful bidder for the first two sand sources, whereas for the third source i.e. Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry, her application was rejected as the solvency certificate furnished was not sufficient to declare her a successful bidder.
-2-6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to submit that the Petitioner gave up her claim with regard to the first two sand quarries by exercising an option after the bidding process was completed, and that since her claim at present is confined to the Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry, the solvency certificate already furnished by her is more than sufficient.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 points out that in a technical sense the Petitioner can be held to be a successful bidder only for two sand quarries i.e. (i) Kishannagar Thanagada Mahanadi Sand Quarry and (ii) Khentala Mahanadi Sand Quarry. The Petitioner could not be declared successful for the Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry on account of lack of required amount of solvency certificate. More importantly, if the Petitioner was to withdraw from participation in the auction process in respect of first two sand quarries, such option should have been exercised prior to the tender process, not subsequent thereto.
8. The above reason appears to be justified. Indeed, if the Petitioner had not exercised the option of forgoing the claims in respect of the first two sand quarries prior to opening of the bid, he cannot be allowed to do so subsequent thereto. Consequently, the action taken by the Opposite Parties in proceeding to award the sand quarry in respect of the Babujanga Mahanadi Sand Quarry in favour of Opposite Party No.6 cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary.
-3-9. The Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
( Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray ) Judge S.K. Guin