Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.2 At that point of time, the petitioner was served with the letter of cancellation of his bid in respect of "Khandava Sand Quarry" by the Tahasildar, Kashinagar, vide Annexure-6 dated 20.12.2021, wherein the petitioner was intimated that the Collector, Gajapati-cum- Controlling Authority had cancelled the bid of "Khandava Sand Quarry" dated 05.11.2021 as per Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, owing to the reason as communicated by the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati, vide letter dated 17.12.2021, that the bid amount quoted by the petitioner was comparatively very less in comparison to the sources in the vicinity. Therefore, selection of the petitioner, as the highest bidder in respect of "Khandava Sand Quarry", was cancelled. 2.3 Challenging the above action of the authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.40431 of 2021 contending therein that, while passing the order impugned dated 20.12.2021, no reason has been assigned nor the Tahasildar, Kashinagar has communicated any reason to the petitioner. Furthermore, Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 provides that if the second highest bidder has quoted unusually 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 and, thereby, since Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 was not complied with, sought for quashing of the said letter dated 20.12.2021. But, on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, Gajapati, vide letter dated 17.12.2021, that the bid amount quoted by the petitioner was comparatively very less in comparison to the sources in the vicinity, the selection of the petitioner, as the highest bidder in respect of "Khandava Sand Quarry", was cancelled. The further stand in the said writ petition was that without assigning any reason, as required under the provisions of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the order under Annexure-6 dated 20.12.2021 having been passed the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. After due adjudication, this Court came to a conclusion that the order dated 20.12.2021 under Annexure-6 communicated by the Tahasildar, Kashinagar, pursuant to the order of the Collector, Gajapati, basing on the report of the ADM dated 17.12.2021 under Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. By holding so, this Court, vide judgment dated 12.05.2022, quashed the aforesaid orders and remitted the matter back to the Collector, Gajapati to pass appropriate order complying with the provisions contained either under Rule 27(10) or Rule 27 (16) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, as the case may be, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, and above all in the interest of augmentation of revenue of the State. In compliance of the said judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 40431 of 2022 [reported in 2022 (Supp.) OLR 813], the order impugned dated 08.08.2023 in Annexure-7 has been passed. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Collector, Gajapati has committed same error and passed the order under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 by cancelling the long term lease of "Khandava Sand Quarry"

made by the competent authority, i.e., Tahasildar, Kashinagar in No.5409/Sairat dated 15.11.2021 under Rule 27 (10) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 and directed for fresh auction of the said quarry. It is further contended that Rule-27(10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 has not been adhered to in letter and spirit, by which the competent authority is required to 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. But in the present case, once the competent authority has passed the order on 15.11.2021, the same having not brought to the notice of the controlling authority, he has no occasion to pass the order under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 for cancellation of the long term lease and also to direct for fresh auction. Thereby, invoking wrong provision under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 the cancellation having been made, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that though the Collector has taken note of Rule-27(16) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 in the order itself, but the order impugned having been passed under Rule-27(10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties although admitted that the Collector, Gajapati has quoted the wrong provision, i.e., Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, in the order dated 15.11.2021, while cancelling the long term lease granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of "Khandava Sand Quarry", but contended that such mentioning of wrong provision cannot disentitle the opposite parties to cancel the lease, as because Rule-27 (16) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 clearly provides that the Collector or the Conservator of Forest, as the case may be, shall have power to cancel the bid duly recording the reasons thereof, if he is not satisfied with the publicity, participation of bidders and amount of additional charges quoted. It is thus contended that if power has been vested with the Collector under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 to cancel the bid, even if there is wrong reference of the provision, i.e., Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, the same cannot vitiate the proceeding. Therefore, it is contended that the order so passed by the Collector is well justified and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court at this stage. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for.

9.1 Needless to say, in the case at hand, the competent authority being the Tahasildar, without bringing the fact to the notice of the controlling authority, namely, the Collector had granted the lease in favour of the petitioner. But, subsequently, when allegation was received against the petitioner on 12.11.2021 from one of the bidders of the very same 'sairat source', a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Addl. District Magistrate and thereafter a report was called for from the Tahasildar, Kasinagar on 20.11.2021. In response to the same, the Tahasildar, on 26.11.2021, submitted his report, wherefrom it is revealed that the second highest bidder has quoted unusually low price in comparison to the highest bidder. As a consequence thereof, the Collector, being the controlling authority, cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority, namely, Tahasildar on 15.11.2021 and directed for fresh auction and by letter dated 17.12.2021 the same was communicated to the petitioner, which was subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. In the said writ petition, this Court, having come to a conclusion that there was non-adherence of the provisions contained under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, quashed the same and remanded the matter back to the Collector to pass appropriate order under Rule-27(10) or Rule-27 (16) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. Consequentially, the order impugned dated 08.08.2023 under Annexure-7 has been passed where reasons have been assigned that the first highest bidder had offered Rs.239/-, whereas the petitioner had offered Rs.156/- as additional charges for "Khandava Sand Quarry". As the second highest bidder had quoted an unusually less price in comparison to the highest bidder of the very same source, this fact ought to have been brought to the notice of the controlling authority by the Tahasildar. But, without doing so, the Tahasildar selected the second highest bidder. By this process, the Collector, while passing the order of cancellation, had not adhered to the provision under Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. But, while passing the order impugned, the Collector has specifically mentioned that there would be great loss to the government exchequer from the source. Therefore, though the order has been passed under Rule-27 (16), but there is a wrong recording of the provision, i.e., Rule-27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016 in the order impugned. 9.2 Rule-27 (16) gives power to the Collector on three contingencies, namely, publicity, participation of bidders and amount of additional charges quoted. In the present case, under third category the additional charges quoted by the petitioner is unusually low than the highest bidder and, therefore, there is every justification that the Collector has to cancel the bid by reasons recorded thereof. The Collector has also mentioned reasons why he has cancelled the source, as there is great loss to the government exchequer from the source itself. Thereby, the reason, which has been assigned in the order impugned, is fully covered by the provisions contained under Rule-27 (16) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. There is no dispute that there is wrong mentioning of the provisions, inasmuch as, in place of Rule-27 (16) it has been mentioned Rule-27 (10). In the considered opinion of this Court, mere wrong mentioning of the provision cannot vitiate the proceeding and on that account it cannot be said that the order passed by the Collector is not justified. Rather, it is well justified and the same does not require any interference of this Court, particularly when the second highest bidder had quoted an unusually low price in comparison to the highest bidder and, as such, the same will cause a great loss to the government exchequer and by that the very purport of the Rule, which is to augment the revenue of the State, will be vitiated.