Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha & on 9 October, 2020
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, B.R. Sarangi
W.P.(C) No. 21613 of 2020
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
02. 09.10.2020 Mr. S. Mallik, Adv. : For the Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, A.G.A. : For the State-Opp. Parties
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties by Video Conferencing mode.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging inaction of the opposite parties in not considering his renewal application for renewal of the lease agreement of the sand quarry for the period he was prevented by a written order of the Tahasildar for operating the quarry and for issuance of fresh advertisement inviting tender by making fresh application in a fresh auction.
The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that an advertisement was issued by the Tahasildar Nawarangpur vide Annexure-1 dated 11.02.2015 inviting applications to participate in the auction for long term lease for five years of the sand quarry located at Mouza-Chatahandi, under Khanta No.1711, Plot No.6986(p) and 5357(p), Kisam-Nadi, totaling to an area Ac.10.75 decimals. The petitioner, along with others, has participated in the said auction and, as such, the petitioner being the highest bidder, the lease of the aforesaid sand quarry was granted in his favour for a period of five years. After complying all the requirements and on depositing of requisite statutory dues, agreement was executed on 06.10.2015. Consequentially, the petitioner -2- started operation of the sand quarry. But, on 16.10.2015 the Tahasildar, Nawarangpur directed the petitioner to stop operation of the sand quarry and not to let any truck and tipper into sand bed for lifting sand until further orders. Thereafter, no further order has been passed by the Tahasildar and, as such, due to disturbances between two villagers, the Tahasildar has passed the said order. Consequentially, the petitioner could not able to operate the quarry and in the meantime five years have been passed. Therefore, against inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner claims for consideration of his representation which has been filed under Annexure-8 by allowing him to operate the sand quarry for a period of five years, as he has already deposited requisite dues. It is further contended that since five years lease period has already been over, in the event the authority is not allowed the petitioner to operate the sand quarry, he may be refunded the dues which he deposited before the authority concerned.
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that since the petitioner has already moved the authority vide Annexure-8 and if there is no other legal impediment stands on the way, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, admittedly the petitioner has been awarded with sand quarry for long term lease for five -3- years and subsequently he sought renewal of lease agreement and since there was inaction on the part of the authority, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 17243 of 2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2020 directing opposite party no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. In compliance of the said order, opposite party no.2- Collector, Nawarangpur passed order in Annexure-7 dated 17.08.2020 to the following effect:-
"Now, therefore, in the light of the above, the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of lease agreement dated 06.10.2015 in respect of Chattahandi sand quarry is not legally tenable. The Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2016 has no provision for renewal of lease agreement. Therefore, the question of renewal of lease agreement executed on 06.10.2015 for the Chattahandi sand quarry as prayed by the petitioner vide Annexure-6 is liable to be hereby rejected, so it is rejected. However, for proper fairness and ends of justice, an opportunity is allowed to the petitioner. Sri Panigrahi to apply for the bidding of Chattahandi sand quarry by quoting price (Addl. Charge) before the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur, who is competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner for bidding in the Chattahandi sand quarry and to finalize the lease with other existing bidding paper received for the said quarry as per Rule-27(5) of OMMC Rules-2016.
With this the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(c) No. 17243/2020 filed by Sidheswar Panigrahi-versus- State of Odisha & others is hereby implemented and the representation dated 15.07.2020 of the petitioner. Sri Sidheswar Panigrahi, S/o- Krushna Chaitanya Panigrahi, at- Badam Street, Post-Nabarangpur, District- Nabarangpur is hereby disposed of."
In view of the reasons assigned by the Collector, we do not find any illegality or irregularity committed in the said order to interfere with the same. But, in course of argument, -4- Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the authority has not allowed the petitioner to operate the sand quarry by extending the lease period, then direction may be given to the authority to refund the amount which he already deposited before the competent authority. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the same. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh application before the competent authority within a period of fifteen days hence for refund of the dues already deposited. If such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application and a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
As Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) (Mohammad Rafiq)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok/Ashok