Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1022 (ORI)

Ajay Agarwal v. State of Odisha

2017-09-11

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. 1. On 27.12.2013, auction notice was issued by opposite party No. 4 for grant of mining lease for the area in question for the financial year 2014-15, which was for a period of one year. The firm-Maa Chandi Stone Crushing of which petitioner is a partner, participated in the said auction and was declared as the highest bidder. Pursuant thereto, after completion of all the formalities, lease was granted in favour of the firm on 30.3.2016, which was for a period of one year. The petitioner thereafter, filed representation that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629 , the period of lease should have been five years, and not one year. The firm thus filed representation before the Tahasildar for extending the period of lease from one year to five years, which was rejected by the Tahasildar on 7.2.2017. The firm thereafter filed an appeal, which was not entertained by the Sub-Collector, and it thus filed writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 9864 of 2017 which was disposed of on 27.5.2017 directing the Sub-Collector to register, hear and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merit. Pursuant there to, on 24.06.2017 the Sub-Collector-opposite party No. 3 passed an order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on merit. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed, with a further prayer to opposite party to extend the lease period of the Firm from one year to five years. 2. We have heard Sri Devashis Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and have perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the Firm of which petitioner is a partner, had participated in the auction which was for grant of lease for a period of one year, in which the bid of the Firm was the highest. The lease deed was executed in favour of the Firm on 30.3.2016, which was for a period of one year. 4. The firm, having agreed to the terms of the lease for a period of one year, cannot thereafter turn around and claim that it should be extended for a period of five years. The lease deed was executed in favour of the Firm on 30.3.2016, which was for a period of one year. 4. The firm, having agreed to the terms of the lease for a period of one year, cannot thereafter turn around and claim that it should be extended for a period of five years. We say this as the consideration for offering the bid in the auction for a lease which is for five years would be different from that of lease which is for one year. Merely because the Firm complied with all the formalities of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, would not entitle the Firm to be granted lease for a period of five years, when the auction for grant of lease is for one year. 5. A similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very same firm of which petitioner is the partner, which is Maa Chandi Stone Crushing v. State of Odisha, 2016 (II) OLR 309, where the same question of extension of lease for a period of five years (where the initial lease was of one year) was under consideration, and in paragraph-8, this Court observed as under: "The consideration for offering the bids, when the mining lease period is of five years, is totally different from the one where the mining lease period is of one year. The bid amount for long term leases would be different. The petitioner had offered its bid for one year in the auction which was held for the year 2014-15, which was after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). The bidders in such auction had offered their bid, keeping in mind that the lease to be executed was to be for one year. Extending the period of lease after the auction is finalized, would amount to changing the terms of the auction after its finalization, which is not permissible in law. On the basis of the said bid, the petitioner cannot thus be permitted to be granted a lease for a period of five years. As such, the claim of the petitioner for extension of lease for a period of five years, on the basis of the petitioner being the highest bidder for the auction held in the year 2014-15, does not deserve to be granted." 6. As such, the claim of the petitioner for extension of lease for a period of five years, on the basis of the petitioner being the highest bidder for the auction held in the year 2014-15, does not deserve to be granted." 6. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The said decision has also been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. S.T. Minerals Private Limited v. State of Orissa & others (WPC No. 2286 of 2017, decided on 31.7.2017. 7. In view of the aforesaid, since it is settled law that where the auction is held for a period of one year and the party which is the highest bidder entered into an lease agreement for such period of one year, cannot thereafter claim extension for a period of five years because of any change of circumstances which may have taken place in the intervening period. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this case, which is accordingly dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.