Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 305 (ORI)

Perfect Sales Corporation v. State of Odisha

2016-04-18

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2016
ORDER The petitioner is a Partnership Firm which has applied for a license for ‘procurement’, storage of Coal for processing and sale (Coal Crusher Unit)’ under sub-category C1 of Odisha Mineral (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling, Illegal Mining Procession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007. With regard to the category under which the petitioner has applied, which is C1, would be clear from Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is not disputed by opposite parties. 2.The application of the petitioner having been rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines, Sambalpur Circle, Sambalpur on 23.3.2015, petitioner challenged the same before the Director of Mines, which appeal has also been dismissed on 30.5.2015. Aggrieved by the same, this petition has been filed. 3.We have heard Sri A.Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 4.From a plain reading of the impugned order dated 23.2.2015, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of license has been rejected, it is clear that reliance on the notification dated 16.12.2011 has been placed by the competent authority. It is further noticed that the application of the petitioner has been treated as if it was for Storage Depot, whereas the application was for a processing unit. On a perusal of the notification dated 16.12.2011, which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it is clear that the same relates to trading license for storage of mineral (other than coal). The license sought by the petitioner is for processing unit of coal. As such, we are of the clear opinion that the notification dated 16.12.2011 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. On a perusal of Circle Wise Licensee Categorization issued by the Department of Steel and Mines (filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition), what is noticed is that the license for Storage Depot are categorized as sub-category license S1 to S7 whereas license for processing unit are sub-categorized as C1, C2 and B1 and B2. The application of the petitioner is admittedly under C1 category for processing unit. As such, treating the application of the petitioner for a Depot, instead of Processing Unit, cannot be justified. The application of the petitioner is admittedly under C1 category for processing unit. As such, treating the application of the petitioner for a Depot, instead of Processing Unit, cannot be justified. The conditions applicable for grant of license for Storage Depot are different from those of Processing Unit. 5.The Licensing Authority, as well as Appellate Authority, have considered the application of the petitioner as if for Deport and not for Processing Unit. As such , the said orders are liable to be quashed on the ground that they have not considered the application of the petitioner in the light of the category for which license had been sought for by the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the orders dated 23.3.2015 and 30.5.2015 passed by the opposite parties 3 and 2 respectively are quashed. The application of the petitioner dated 10.2.2015 for grant of procurement, storage for processing and sale (Crusher Unit) under sub-category C1 shall be considered afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before opposite party no. 3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed to the extent indicated.