Orissa High Court
Madan Mohan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 3 January, 2022
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.40431 of 2021
Madan Mohan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Muduli, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
03.01.2022 Order No. W.P.(C) No.40431 of 2021 and I.A. No.18896 of 2021
1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate.
3. The petitioner files this writ petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 in Annexure-6, by which the selection of highest bidder in respect of the Khandava Sand Quarry has been cancelled by exercising Rule 27 (10) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short 'OMMC Rules').
4. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while passing the order impugned no reason has been assigned nor the Tahasildar, Kashinagar has communicated any reason to the petitioner. Furthermore, Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules provides that if the second highest bidder has quoted unusually Page 1 of 1 // 2 // low price in comparison to the highest bidder of the same source or other sources in the vicinity, the competent authority may bring it to the notice of the Controlling Authority, who after proper verification and with due justification may cancel the bid and direct for fresh auction. If that be so, the provision of Rule 27 (10) of the aforesaid OMMC Rules has not been complied with fully and, as such, the cancellation made is without application of mind. More so, the 2nd highest bidder though has quoted higher price of additional charges by offering Rs.239/-, but in the remark column it has been shown as insufficient solvent. Consequently, his application has already been rejected and the petitioner called upon for production of environmental clearance certificate. If the application of the petitioner has been accepted and he has been asked to go for subsequent follow up of action, the Collector cannot turn around and cancel the same without assigning any reason as required under the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, 2016.
5. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that the order impugned is appealable one, but, instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court directly.
6. But fact remains, if the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and non-compliance of principles of natural justice, the Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the matter as has been Page 2 of 3 // 3 // held in the present case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.
7. Issue notice.
8. Four extra sets of the brief be served on learned Addl. Government Advocate during course of the day, who shall take instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit, if any, by the next date.
9. List this matter on 17.02.2022. Till then, as an interim measure, there shall be stay of operation of order dated 20.12.2021 in Annexure-6.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(DR. B.R. Sarangi) Judge (S.K. Panigrahi) Judge pcd Page 3 of 3