Orissa High Court
WP(C)/17630/2017 on 11 July, 2018
Author: S. Panda
Bench: S. Panda
W.P.(C) No. 17631 of 2017
07. 11.07.2018 Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1.
The petitioners-State Authorities in the writ petition
assail the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 3069 of 2015
wherein the Tribunal quashed the order of punishment dated
20.7.2015 as the same was imposed taking into consideration the
violation of provision of Orissa Minor Minerals Concessions Rules,
2004 (hereinafter referred to as "OMMC Rules, 2004") which are
not applicable. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the period of
suspension be treated as duty and the applicant is entitled to
consequential benefits.
The learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted
that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration Rule, 32 of
Chapter-V which stipulate grant of quarry permits and its
duration. Rule, 32 clearly stated the period of permission shall not
exceed three months. However the delinquent has granted lease
on long term basis up to five years violating such rules and
specific instruction of the Board of Revenue. Hence the impugned
ks order needs to be interfered with.
The learned counsel appearing for opposite party
No.1 however supported the impugned order and submitted that
the delinquent has exercised his jurisdiction within the ambit of
the statutory provision. Taking into consideration the same and
the protection as stipulated under Rule, 75 for action taken in
good faith the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order which need
not be interfered with.
Considering the rival submission of the parties and
after going through the impugned order it reveals that the
Tribunal has considered the letter issued by the Board of Revenue
2
which was annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 in original application
wherein it was specifically instructed that he is to take action as
per the provision contained in Chapter-IV of the said rules which
deals with the lease. The lease was granted by the delinquent as
per the Government instruction for a period of five years pursuant
to the provision contained in Rule, 2004 and with no objection
from the Gram Panchayat as well as the higher authority i.e. the
Sub-Collector who has approved the said action of the competent
authority i.e. Tahasildar.
Admittedly Rule, 27 prescribed regarding lease of
minor minerals which stipulates as follows;
"27. Lease of minor minerals-Notwithstanding
anything contained in these rules, no quarry lease
specified in item 1(i) of Schedule III shall be granted
for a period less than five years on such terms and
conditions as may be specified by the Competent
Authority."
Schedule-IV of the said rule stipulates who is the
competent authority in respect of areas and minerals. In view of
Rule, 2(e) competent authority means officers of the concerned
Department of Government mentioned in columns (3) and (4) of
Schedule-IV for the purpose and jurisdiction specified against
each of them in Columns (2) and (1) respectively thereof. There it
was stated minor minerals specified in item 1(i) of Schedule-III
when occurring within village boundaries for lease, the Tahasildar
is the competent authority. Schedule-III 1(i) refers to ordinary
sand other than used for industrial and prescribed purpose.
The learned Addl. Government Advocate produced a
copy of the instruction dated 6.9.2008 issued by the Board of
Revenue, Orisss, Cuttack in Court today with regard to the
settlement of sources containing minor minerals specified in item
1(i) of Schedule III of OMMC Rules, 2004. The process of
sanction/renewal of lease are to be regularly inspected by the
senior officer going to the Tahasil for annual check and intimated
3
to Board as well as Government. In the present case the Sub-
Collector has granted no objection for grant of lease following the
aforesaid guidelines regarding settlement of sources containing
minor mineral specified in item-1(i) of Schedule-III of OMMC
Rules, 2004. It is also not disputed that the delinquent has
granted the lease of the ordinary sand occurring within village
boundaries with prior permission of the Sub-Collector as
discussed above. The delinquent being the Tahasildar is the
competent authority therefore, the contention raised by the
learned Addl. Government Advocate that charge against the
delinquent is without any public auction the sources of minor
minerals was allotted violating Rule, 35 was proved is not correct.
The Tribunal in the impugned order assigned reasons thereof.
In view of the above discussion and the statutory
provision since the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order, we are
not inclined to interfere with the same in exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
..................
S. Panda, J ....................... K.R.Mohapatra, J