SHASWATA PRATIKA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the letter no.719 dtd. 9/3/2021 under Annexure-9 issued by the Tahasildar, Bonai-opposite party no.3 cancelling the bid process of Baliatota Sand Bed under Tahasildar, Bonai in the district of Sundargarh, and to issue direction to opposite party no.3 to forward the documents under Annexure-10, along with the relevant documents and certificates mentioned at serial nos.6, 7 and 8 of the list for environmental clearance, for execution of the lease deed in his favour.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that in order to lease out for a period of five years from 2019-20 to 2023-24, Baliatota Sand Bed, in river Brahmani, was put to auction. The petitioner submitted his application in Form-M in triplicate for the said sand quarry in sealed cover offering his bid. He paid the application fee of Rs.1,000.00, earnest money and other dues for making the application. The application of the petitioner was found complete in all respect and was taken into consideration by the competent authority. As the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder, the Tahasildar, Bonai, vide letter no.106 dtd. 16/1/2020, intimated the petitioner in Form-F that he was selected as successful bidder for grant of sand quarry on lease for five years and accepted Rs.15.00 towards royalty per cubic meter of sand. It was further intimated that the mining plan and environment clearance for the said lease had not been obtained. The petitioner was also directed to convey the acceptance of the terms and conditions and to deposit the security amount. In response thereto, the petitioner conveyed the acceptance of terms and conditions of the quarry lease and deposited Rs.2,00,000.00 towards security deposit through Banker's cheque and on further calculation the petitioner also deposited another Rs.45,000.00 on 6/2/2020.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the Tahasildar cancelling the bid and forfeiting the security amount, vide letter dtd. 9/3/2021, is in gross violation of the order passed by this Court. It is contended that if the Tahsildar had passed order on 9/3/2021 with regard to cancellation of lease, such fact should have been brought to the notice of the Court when the order was passed on 18/3/2021 in W.P.(C) No.10449 of 2021, on the basis of instructions received by the State Counsel from the Tahsildar. Thereby, the order impugned so passed by the Tahasildar under Annexure-9 antedating to 9/3/2021, cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that though the Tahasildar denied to have received the documents for environment clearance from the petitioner for countersignature, but the petitioner had submitted the same on 1/11/2020. Therefore, without entering into the controversy, this Court, vide order dtd. 18/3/2021, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.10449 of 2021, directed the petitioner to appear in person before the Tahasildar at 11 A.M. on 22/3/2021 and give another set of documents for environmental clearance properly dated and signed for the purpose of countersignature. Pursuant to such direction, though the petitioner complied the same on 22/3/2021 by producing relevant documents for countersignature, but the Tahasildar served on him the order dtd. 9/3/2021 under Annexure-9, by which the lease was cancelled and the security amount was forfeited, which is in utter disregard to the order dtd. 18/3/2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10449 of 2021. It is further contended that the bid of the petitioner was not cancelled till 18/3/2021 and also the security amount was not forfeited. But when the order was passed by this Court and after receipt of the order passed by this Court for countersignature, the Tahasildar became vindictive and passed the order impugned antedating to 9/3/2021 and served the same on the petitioner on 22/3/2021. As such, if the Tahasildar was not prepared to countersign, the reasons thereof should have been informed to the petitioner not later than 30/3/2021. Thereby, the Tahasildar has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and contrary to the rules by passing the order impugned. Accordingly, he seeks for interference of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.