Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 403 (ORI)

Narayan Nayak v. State of Odisha

2017-04-13

K.R.MOHAPATRA, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. 2. Auction was held for grant of lease of sand sairat in question, and the highest bidder having backed out, the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, as he was the 2nd highest bidder. The period of lease was five years. Admittedly, the lease deed was executed on 22.08.2015 and registered on 11.09.2015 and the petitioner started operating the sand sairat after execution of the lease deed. Primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Raghunathpur, by which the lease of sand sairat has been determined and the petitioner has been restrained from carrying on the mining activities. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The short submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is a non-speaking one, inasmuch as it does not specify as to which condition of the lease deed has been violated by the petitioner and as to how the petitioner has been shown to have extracted and removed minerals beyond the approved mining plan. Two show cause notices dated 23.08.2016 and 24.09.2016 are said to have been served on the petitioner, to which the petitioner is also said to have submitted his reply. In paragraph-21 of the writ petition, it is specifically denied that any such show cause notices, as mentioned in the impugned order, had been served on the petitioner and it is stated that the only show cause notice given to the petitioner was one dated 02.08.2016, to which the petitioner had already submitted his reply and the same has admittedly not been considered in the impugned order. 4. All that has been stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner has filed reply to the said two show cause notices, which is not found to be satisfactory. If an authority accepts that the show cause notice has been served, to which a reply has also been filed, the least that is expected is that reason should have been given as to why the reply was not found to be satisfactory. If an authority accepts that the show cause notice has been served, to which a reply has also been filed, the least that is expected is that reason should have been given as to why the reply was not found to be satisfactory. In the absence of the opposite parties giving any such reason as to why the reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and also not specifying which of the terms of the lease deed had been violated by the petitioner, because of which the lease of the sand sairat was being determined and the petitioner has been restrained from carrying on mining activities, we are of the opinion that the said order would be classified as a vague and non-speaking one, and thus liable to be quashed. 5. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that royalty, surface rent, and dead rent, Environment Management Fund and District Mineral Foundation Fund are all to be paid quarterly in advance, beginning from the date of execution of the lease. Learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute this position except that the same should be paid in advance on quarterly basis in accordance with Rule 27-F of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the same has to be paid with effect from the beginning of the financial year and not from the date of execution of the lease deed. 6. In our opinion, such submission does not have force as the liability of the party to deposit any such demand in advance would arise only from the date of execution of the lease deed and not from any date prior to that, unless so stipulated in the agreement, which is not the case of any party. 7. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure-17). If the opposite parties so decide, they may serve fresh notice on the petitioner on or before 27th April, 2017, to which the petitioner shall submit his reply on or before 8th May, 2017 and the Opposite party No.3-Tahasildar, Raghunathpur shall thereafter pass necessary speaking orders in accordance with law on or before 15th May, 2017. A free copy of this order shall be handed over to learned Additional Government Advocate for compliance.