Orissa High Court
Prabin Kumar vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 22 July, 2022
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 41259 of 2021
Prabin Kumar ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Dash, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.07.2022 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard Mr. S. Dash, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed this application with a prayer to quash the advertisement No. 5024 dated 15.12.2021 under Annexure-4 and further seeks direction to recast or re-calculate the demand made under Annexure-2 adhering to Rule 32 (6) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
4. Mr. S. Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 03.01.2022, though counter affidavit has been filed, but no reply has been submitted with regard to acceptance of the amount on Pro-rate basis, which is permissible under Rule 32 (5) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. The petitioner is the successful bidder and he has deposited 1/4th of the royalty amount and other dues amounting to Page 1 of 4 Rs.12,97,500.00 as against the total amount of Rs.63,33,600.00 and also willing to deposit the balance amount within a short time for enabling him to operate the quarry pursuant to the advertisement issued on 10.06.2020 under Annexure-1.
5. It appears that while issuing notice, this Court passed an order on 03.01.2022, wherein at Paragraph-4 and 8, it has been indicated as follows:-
"4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 10.06.2020 under annexure-1, the petitioner was the highest bidder the THEMRA Sand Quarry has been settled in his favour and he has been directed to obtain environment clearance for the purpose of operation. The authority has also directed the petitioner to deposit requisite amount as per the provision of Rule-32 (5) of the OMMC Rule, 2016. Though he has deposited one fourth of the amount but instead of accepting the same, now without intimating the petitioner to that extent, a fresh advertisement has been issued on 15.12.2021. it is further contended that as per Rule 32 (6) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the authority can accept the pro-rata amount. But, instead of considering the same, a fresh advertisement has been made, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Xxx xxx xxx
8. As an interim measure, the process pursuant to advertisement dated 15.12.2021 under Annexure-4 shall continue but no final decision shall be taken thereon till 19th January, 2022"
6. In response to the notice, though Counter Affidavit has been filed, but no answer has been given to the quarry made by this Court in the order dated 03.01.2022, save and except mentioning in Paragraphs-8 to the following extent:-
8. That in reply to the averments made in Paras-5 & 7 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that for the purpose of determination of minimum guaranteed quantity is to be followed where the lease has been executed. In this case, it is Page 2 of 4 agreed that although the lessee has deposited Rs.12,97,500.00, i.e. 1/4th of royalty, the annual charges on account of the quarry lease aggregates to Rs.63,33,600.00 including the charges defined in Rule-32 (5) of OMMC Rules, 2016. In this context, it is further submitted that after receipt of Environmental Clearance from SEIAA vide their letter No. 566 dated 15.02.2021, as required under Rule-43 of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the lessee was intimated vide this Office letter No. 1283/Touzi dated 17.03.2021 to execute Lease Agreement and deposit the rest amount of Rs.50,36, 100.00.
In this context, it is further submitted that as per Rule 43 (2) of OMMC Rules, 2016, "the date of commencement of the period for which a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed is registered.". Had the petitioner executed the lease agreement on 1st April, 2021, he would have better option to extract quarry for the entire year 2021-2022 and so on. but due to his willful quietness in the matter, the Government borne heavy loss of revenue which compelled the authority to invoke Rule-27 (13) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.
7. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State stated that though the Counter Affidavit has been filed, but so far as the acceptance of the Pro-rata amount is concerned nothing has been stated in the Counter Affidavit. He further contended that since the Petitioner has not deposited the balance amount, therefore, the Opposite Parties were constrained to proceed for fresh notice inviting tender of minor minerals on 15.12.2021 under Annexure-4, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by authorities by passing such order. At the same time, Mr. Mohanty, contended that since the Petitioner has already deposited i.e. Rs.12,97,500.00, which has been accepted by the authority towards 1/4th of the Royalty and other charges, if the Petitioner is willing to operate the quarry by depositing the balance amount, excluding the amount already deposited, i.e. Rs.
Page 3 of 4Rs.12,97,500.00, within a period of one month, the Opposite Parties may not have any objection to allow the petitioner to operate the quarry pursuant to the notice vide Annexure-1.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the Opposite Parties are willing to allow the Petitioner to operate the quarry in the event of deposit of the balance amount of Rs.50,36,100/- within a period of one month, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition with the observation that in the event the petitioner deposits the said amount within a period of one month, he may be allowed to operate the quarry pursuant to the notice inviting tender under Annexure-1 dated 10.06.2020 immediately on acceptance of the amount itself. In the event the Petitioner fails to deposit the amount, it is open to the Opposite Parties to proceed further pursuant to the notice dated 15.12.2021 under Annexure-4 in accordance with law.
9. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun/Banita (S.K. MISHRA)
JUDGE
Page 4 of 4