Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1435 (ORI)

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2017-12-11

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The Government of Odisha, Steel and Mines Department, for grant of quarry lease for a period of five years, issued notification dated 16.09.2014 inviting applications from the intending applicants in prescribed Form-J. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for grant of lease in respect of Laterite Stone Quarry at Bailo under Tahasildar, Gondia in the district of Dhenkanal. The petitioner, being the highest bidder, was called upon by the Tahasildar, Gondia, vide letter dated 21.03.2015, to deposit Rs.8,34,000/- as EMD in shape of demand draft in favour of the competent authority, and also to submit mining plan as well as environmental clearance within thirty days. In compliance thereof, petitioner deposited Rs.8,34,000/- towards EMD before opposite party no.3, along with the mining plan for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20 and environmental clearance issued by the State Improvement Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha dated 22.06.2015. Consequently, Government of Odisha executed a lease deed on 07.10.2015 in respect of Khata No. 25, Plot No. 110 of Kissam-Patharachatan measuring Ac.6.50/Hec.2.63 for Bailo Laterite Stone Quarry in Mouza-Bailo, for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20. Pursuant to such execution of lease deed, Tahasildar, Gondia, vide letter dated 09.10.2015, directed Revenue Inspector, Pingua for demarcation of stone quarry. Despite compliance of all formalities, when the land for operation of the stone quarry was not handed over, the petitioner on 22.12.2015 submitted a representation before the Collector, Dhenkanal that even though he had deposited the bid amount, yet he was not informed as to the full bid amount to be deposit before the authority and, on the other hand, illegal quarry was being carried out by other person, in the site leased out in his favour. On 26.12.2015, the petitioner submitted another representation to Tahasildar, Gondia requesting to inform him of the quarterly deposit of the amount to obtain the stone quarry. Not only that, for illegal quarry which was being carried out on the area leased out to the petitioner, he also lodged an FIR. Without considering the grievance of the petitioner made in the representation, he was issued with a show-cause notice on 25.01.2016, to which he gave reply on 08.02.2016. But Tahasildar, Gondia, by order dated 27.04.2016, cancelled the lease of the petitioner for violation of terms of the lease deed, hence this application. 2. Mr. Without considering the grievance of the petitioner made in the representation, he was issued with a show-cause notice on 25.01.2016, to which he gave reply on 08.02.2016. But Tahasildar, Gondia, by order dated 27.04.2016, cancelled the lease of the petitioner for violation of terms of the lease deed, hence this application. 2. Mr. A.A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no violation of conditions of the lease deed made by the petitioner and the allegations in the show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 against the petitioner were duly replied on 08.02.2016, but the same has not been considered and the lease deed has been cancelled primarily on the ground that the petitioner had carried on quarrying activity in the neighboring plot, which was not leased out to the petitioner and that there was no proper boundary pillars and display sign boards put up by the petitioner. It is contended that said allegations are wrong, and though a specific reply to the same had been given by the petitioner, the same has not been considered and as such, the order passed by the Tahasildar, Gondia is totally illegal and has been passed without application of mind and thus, is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has stated that the impugned order has been passed after complying the principle of natural justice and after considering the reply of the petitioner and as such, the cancellation order does not call for interference. 4. We have heard Mr. A.A. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 5. As it transpires, a notice was issued on 25.01.2016 by the Tahasildar, Gondia asking the petitioner to show-cause within seven days as to why (a) the mining area allotted in favour of the petitioner has no display board at the quarry site; (b) the mining area has no poll of demarcation; and (c) the petitioner is accessing the endowment land instead of the mining area which is leased out in his favour. In response to such notice, the petitioner submitted his reply, wherein he produced the photocopy of the display board constructed by him at the entry point of the quarry site and also produced all the relevant documents substantiating that he has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. But, without considering his reply and also the documents filed by him, the Tahasildar, Gondia, vide order dated 27.04.2016, cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Bailo Laterite Stone Quarry, and prohibited the petitioner from entering into the said stone quarry. The order so passed on 27.04.2016 by the Tahasildar, Gondia, as would be evident, does not contain any reason whatsoever and is a cryptic one. 6. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 , it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision so reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . 7. Having gone through the records what we find is that the order does not discuss the contents of the reply and merely reiterates the averments made in the show cause notice and further merely proceeds to certify that the allegations in the show cause notice are correct. Merely stating that the reply to the show cause notice has been received would not be sufficient. The officer passing the order has to state as to what has been mentioned in the reply and consider the same and give a finding as to why it is not accepted. It is only thereafter that a proper order can be said to be passed, which has not been done in the present case. The officer passing the order has to state as to what has been mentioned in the reply and consider the same and give a finding as to why it is not accepted. It is only thereafter that a proper order can be said to be passed, which has not been done in the present case. As such, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, to the extent that the order has been passed without considering the relevant documents and the reply of the petitioner, has force. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Tahasildar, Gondia has been done so without dealing with the reply of the petitioner and has thus been passed without application of mind and as such, is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Tahasildar, Gondia is quashed. The Tahasildar shall, however, be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the reply given by the petitioner and other parties, if thereby any.