Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 480 (ORI)

Binod Kumar Patel v. P. Dillesswar Rao

2003-07-31

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this application challenges the grant of lease in respect of sand quarry in favour of opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2 as well as the order passed by the appellant authority, opposite party No.1 2. We have heard Shri S.C. Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 in spite of service of notice. 3. Case of the petitioner is that on 12.9.2000 he had filed an application before the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda for grant of lease of sand quarry covering an area of 89.98 acres of land and also offered to extract 10,000 Cubit meters of sand annually on payment of royalty at the prescribed rate of Rs. 5/- per C.M. On 21.9.2000 the opposite party No.1 filed an applica¬tion for lease of sand quarry covering an area of 184.61 acres of land and offered to extract 3500/10500 C.M. for three years on payment of requisite royalty. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he had offered to extract much more quantity of sand than that of the opposite party No.1 and in the process the State Government would have earned much more money towards royalty, ignoring the case of the petitioner and by mis-interpreting the offer made by the opposite party No.1, application of the oppo¬site party No.1 was accepted and he was granted lease of the sand quarry. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 that the opposite party No.1 offered to extract 3500/10,500 cubic meters of sand for a period of three years and since the offer made by the opposite party No.1 was more than that of the petitioner the same was accepted keeping in mind more revenue that may be collected by the State Government towards royalty. 4. From Annexure-1 it appears that the application filed by the petitioner in Form-A was registered as M.L. Case No. 8/2000. In the said application the petitioner had stated that he has financial resources to invest Rs. 50,000/- and can raise 10,000 C.M. of sand annually. All the requisite documents, such as, Nationality Certificate, Clearances from Sales Tax and Income Tax Department and other required documents were in proper form. Opposite party No.1 submitted an application for lease of sand quarry which was registered as M.L. Case No. 9/ML/2000. 50,000/- and can raise 10,000 C.M. of sand annually. All the requisite documents, such as, Nationality Certificate, Clearances from Sales Tax and Income Tax Department and other required documents were in proper form. Opposite party No.1 submitted an application for lease of sand quarry which was registered as M.L. Case No. 9/ML/2000. In his application in form-A he offered to extract 3500/10,500 C.M. for three years. Accepting the offer made by the opposite party No.1 order was passed granting lease in favour of the opposite party No.2, whereas the application of the petitioner was rejected, Challenging the said grant of lease in favour of opposite party No.1 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Jharsuguda which was dismissed in Annexure-5 holding that the offer made by the opposite party No.1 was higher than that of the petitioner. 5. On consideration of the averments made by the petition¬er as well as the opposite parties 2 to 4 and on perusal of the documents, we find that there is only one question that needs to be decided in this case. The only question raised before us is that the petitioner’s offer of extracting 10,000 C.M. of sand annually was more than that of the offer made by the opposite party No.1 From Annexure-1 it is clear that the petitioner had offered to extract 10,000 C.M. of sand annually, that comes to 30,000 C.M. of sand within the period of lease which is ordinari¬ly granted for three years. Opposite party No.1 in his applica¬tion in Form-A against column “Approximate quantity of minor minerals expected to be raised annually” has mentioned 3500/10500 for three years. We fail to understand as to how the offer made by the opposite party No.1 is more than that of the petitioner. If opposite party No.1 had offered to extract 10,500 C.M. of sand every year, there was no need for him to mention the figure 3500 C.M. The offer made by the opposite party No.1 clearly goes to show that he offered to extract 3500 C.M. sand every year for a period of three years totalling to 10,500 C.M. of sand. Had the petitioner been granted lease he would have extracted 30,000 cubit meters of sand giving much better revenue to the State Government towards royalty than that of the opposite party No. 1. Had the petitioner been granted lease he would have extracted 30,000 cubit meters of sand giving much better revenue to the State Government towards royalty than that of the opposite party No. 1. However, in the meantime, it appears that opposite party No.1 has operated the quarry for a considerable length of time. We, there¬fore, set aside the orders in Annexure-4 and 5 and direct the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda to negotiate between the parties again and whoever offers to extract more sand in a year shall be awarded the lease for the balance period or for a period of three years whichever may deem proper in accordance with law. This order be communicated to the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda (opposite party No.3) immediately for compliance and after receipt of the order, the Sub-Collector shall take necessary steps for stopping of quarry operation by opposite party No.1. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Application disposed of.