JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The Tahasildar, Shamakhunta in the district of Mayurbhanj, opposite party no.4 issued a notice for long term quarry lease bearing no.652 dated 13.04.2015 inviting applications in Form-J in triplicate along with required documents from the interested bidders in sealed covers under the provisions of Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. Pursuant to such notice, applications duly filled in sealed covers in respect of TMC No.16/2015-16 of Suniapal Sand Bed Sairat Sources of Khata No.74, Plot No.319-322 of area in hector 5.65 were submitted by different bidders, which were received on 27.04.2015, and the sealed covers were opened on 28.04.2015. In respect of said sand quarry, five persons had participated in the proceedings, of whom one Tarakanta Mohanty had offered highest bid price at the rate of Rs.258/- per c.m., the bid of the petitioner was the second highest at the rate of Rs.185/- per c.m. and opposite party no.5 was the third highest bidder, who had offered Rs.169/- per c.m. Though Tarakanta Mohanty was the highest bidder, due to want of certain documents, namely, affidavit, treasury challan and solvency certificate, a notice was issued on 29.04.2015 directing him to submit such documents on or before 08.05.2015 along with EMD. Since the bid was being undertaken in respect of Suniapal Sand Bed along with other sairat sources, the highest bidders of respective sources were required to furnish the wanting documents, which had been indicated in the aforesaid notice. Tarakanta Mohanty having not furnished the documents, as required, on or before 08.05.2015 along with EMD, on 08.05.2015 itself vide Annexure-5 the bid was settled in favour of the 3rd highest bidder, opposite party no.5 at the rate of Rs.169/- per c.m. and he was directed to submit EMD, prepare mining plan and get environmental clearance within three months. The petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, having offered the price of Rs.185/- per c.m., being aggrieved by such notice dated 08.05.2015 in Annexure-5 settling Suniapal Sand Bed in favour opposite party no.5, has filed this writ petition. 2. Mr. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, the sand quarry in question has been settled in favour of opposite party no.5, who was the third highest bidder and had offered lesser price than the petitioner. 2. Mr. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who was the second highest bidder, the sand quarry in question has been settled in favour of opposite party no.5, who was the third highest bidder and had offered lesser price than the petitioner. In that view of the matter, opposite party no.4 has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, which hits Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State has stated that pursuant to the notice dated 29.04.2015, the bidders were required to submit the wanting documents on or before 08.05.2015 along with the EMD, and the same having not been complied with by the petitioner, the authority has not committed any illegality or irregularity in settling the sources in favour of opposite party no.5, the third highest bidder. 4. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.5, the third highest bidder, has stated that the application submitted by opposite party no.5 in prescribed Form-J being in consonance with law, even if he had offered lower price, opposite party no.4 has settled the sources in his favour. Consequentially, no illegality has been committed by the authority. Further more, it is urged that opportunity had been given to the highest bidders to submit the wanting documents on or before 08.05.2015. Since the highest bidders did not submit the documents, as required, within the time frame, there was no other option available to opposite party no.4 than to settle the Suniapal Sand Bed in favour of opposite party no.5. Therefore, no illegality has been committed so as to warrant interference by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage. 6. The admitted facts are that opposite party no.4 had issued a notice on 13.04.2015 for grant of long term quarry lease for a period of five years of different sources under its jurisdiction, including Sunialpal Sand Bed, in respect of which the petitioner and opposite party no.5 had submitted their application along with three others. 6. The admitted facts are that opposite party no.4 had issued a notice on 13.04.2015 for grant of long term quarry lease for a period of five years of different sources under its jurisdiction, including Sunialpal Sand Bed, in respect of which the petitioner and opposite party no.5 had submitted their application along with three others. On opening of the price bids on 28.04.2015, it was found that one Tarakanta Mohanty had quoted highest rate of royalty, i.e., at the rate of Rs.258/- per c.m., the petitioner had quoted second highest rate of Rs.185/- per c.m., whereas opposite party no.5 had quoted third highest rate of Rs.169/- per c.m. On 29.04.2015, opposite party no.4 issued notice Annexure-4 directing the respective highest bidders in respect of different sairat sources to submit wanting documents on or before 8.5.2015 along with EMD. So far as Suniapal Sand Bed (TMC No. 16/2015-16) is concerned, the name of Tarakanta Mohanty was shown as the highest bidder, who had quoted highest royalty at the rate of Rs.258/- per c.m. Tarakanta Mohanty, being the highest bidder in respect of the sairat source in question, having not furnished the wanting documents on or before 08.05.2015 pursuant to notice dated 29.04.2015, his bid was cancelled and in his place, opposite party no.5, who had furnished necessary documents, was selected and called upon to submit EMD, prepare mining plan and get environmental clearance within three months. Opposite party no.5 was the third highest bidder and, by selecting him, the second highest bidder, namely, the petitioner has been ignored by the authority. In other words, no opportunity was given to the second highest bidder, the petitioner herein, to furnish the necessary wanting documents, if any, for selecting him for grant of long term lease quarry in his favour. 7. In Exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), the State Government has framed Rules for regulating the grant of mineral concessions in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith, called “The Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2004 Rules”). The said Rules have undergone an amendment called “The Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rule 2014” published in Odisha Gazette vide Notification No. 443/2014 dated 16.09.2013. Chapter-IV deals with grant of quarry leases. The said Rules have undergone an amendment called “The Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rule 2014” published in Odisha Gazette vide Notification No. 443/2014 dated 16.09.2013. Chapter-IV deals with grant of quarry leases. Rule 26 (1) of 2004 Rules reads as follows:- 26. Application for quarry lease and its renewal- (1) An application for quarry lease or its renewal shall be made to the competent authority in FORM –J in triplicate and shall be accompanied with the following documents and particulars : (i) Treasury Challan showing deposit of one thousand rupees (non-refundable) towards the application fee: (ii) Plan, boundary description and land schedule, which would facilitate easy identification of the area applied for; (iii) An affidavit stating the details of area held by the applicant or with any other person(s) having joint interest by way of quarry lease within the State; (iv) Attested copies of up-to-date Income-tax and Sales tax clearance certificates or non-assessment certificates, as the case may be; Note - In case of non-availability of an up-to-date Income Tax clearance certificate, an affidavit that up-to-date Income Tax returns as prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that tax due including the tax on account of self assessment has been paid, may be furnished. (v) An affidavit stating that no mining due payable under the Act and the Rules made there under is outstanding against the applicant; (vi) Where the land applied for belongs to Government (Revenue Department) a no objection certificate from the Tahasildar for grant of quarry lease; (vii) Where the land applied for belongs to private persons, consent of all such persons for grant of quarry lease; (viii) Where the land applied for is of forest kissam, a clearance from Forest Department for grant of quarry lease; (ix) A solvency certificate and a list of immovable properties from the Revenue Authority; (x) In case of claims of preference because of industry, attested copies of documents to establish that he has already set up or has definite plan for setting up an industry based on minor mineral in the state; (xi) Any other information which the applicant intends to furnish, such as, technical knowledge, experience, machinery under possession, financial position and the like.” On perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it appears that an application for quarry lease shall be made to the competent authority in FORM-J in triplicate and shall be accompanied with the documents as mentioned in clauses-(i) to (xi). If the documents, as enumerated in clauses-(i) to (xi) of Rule-26(1), are not appended to in the prescribed FORM-J, then it can be construed that application so submitted for grant of quarry lease is defective/ incomplete. The same could not have been accepted/considered by the authority. 8. The cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that if the language of the Rules is very plain and simple then it has to be construed in its natural and grammatical meaning. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 , the apex Court held that cardinal rule of construction of statute is to read the statute literally, that is, by giving to the words used by the legislature their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The said principle has been reiterated in Shri Ram Daya Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 674 , Electrical Manufacturing Co. The said principle has been reiterated in Shri Ram Daya Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 674 , Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. D.D. Bhargava, AIR, 1968 SC 247, Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR 1997 SC 1165 , Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. M.R.T.P. Commission, AIR 2003 SC 317 , State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram, AIR 2007 SC 2018 , State of Haryana v. Suresh, AIR 2007 SC 2245 . 9. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule-26 of 2004 Rules have to be complied with in their letter and spirit. But by deviating from Rule 26(1), opposite party no.4 has issued a notice on 29.04.2015 allowing the highest bidder, namely, Tarakanta Mohanty to submit the wanting documents, on or before 08.05.2015 along with EMD. Therefore, the action of opposite party no.4 is contrary to Rule 26(1) of 2004 Rules. 10. As it appears, opportunity was given to the highest bidder to furnish the wanting documents pursuant to the notice dated 29.04.2015. If that be so, similar benefits should have been given to the petitioner by calling upon him to furnish the wanting documents, if any, and ultimately, if the petitioner would have complied the same, the quarry lease in question, should have been awarded in his favour. But bypassing the petitioner, the authority has allotted the quarry lease in favour of opposite party no.5, who was the third highest bidder. Admittedly, for awarding the quarry lease in favour of opposite party no.5, it has been urged that he had complied Rule-26(1) of the 2004 Rules. But nothing has been produced before this Court by the State-opposite parties or opposite party no.5 to substantiate the same. In absence of any material before this Court, no presumption can be drawn that settlement in favour of opposite party no.5 has been done in accordance with law. 11. In Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , law is well settled “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 11. In Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , law is well settled “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” The said principles have been followed subsequently in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 , Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 , Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 , Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1921 , Ram Deen Maurya v. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 735 . 12. From the above, it can be safely concluded that, if Rule-26(1) of 2004 Rules prescribes that application has to be submitted by furnishing the documents mentioned therein and, any application submitted bereft of such documents, the same should not have been entertained as the application itself would be a defective one. Further, no power has been vested with opposite party no.4 to allow time to submit the wanting documents by the highest bidder. Thereby, the authority has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, which is not conferred under the Rules prescribed. In addition to the same, acceptance of offer made by the third highest bidder, without affording opportunity to the second highest bidder, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, if the highest bidder had given offer of Rs.258/- per c.m., acceptance of offer made by third highest bidder of Rs.169/- per c.m. amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers. By this, the State is losing its revenue at near about Rs.89/- per c.m. and no reasons have been assigned for allowing the third highest bidder to go for grant of long term quarry lease causing loss of revenue of the State. Therefore, while entertaining this application, vide order dated 01.07.2015 in Misc. Case No. 10014 of 2015 this Court granted interim order to maintain status quo in respect of the said quarry. In course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that pursuant to the said status quo order, opposite party no.5 has not been granted long term quarry lease and the sairat source in question has not been operated till date. 13. In course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that pursuant to the said status quo order, opposite party no.5 has not been granted long term quarry lease and the sairat source in question has not been operated till date. 13. Considering the facts from all angels, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the settlement of quarry in question made in favour of opposite party no.5, the third highest bidder, cannot sustain in the eye of law. Thereby, the notice no.887 dated 08.05.2015 so far it relates to settlement of Suniapal Sand Bed (TMC No.16/2015-16) in favour of opposite party no.5 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 14. Before parting with the case, this Court directs the opposite party no.4 to conduct fresh auction for grant of long term quarry lease in respect of Suniapal Sand Bed (TMC No.16/2015-16) by affording adequate opportunity to all the parties in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and in consonance with provisions contained in 2004 Rules.