M/S Deepak Steel And Power Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 74 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.14064 of 2013

              M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd.           ....           Petitioner
                                                       Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate
                                        -versus
              State of Odisha and another               ....     Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA

                        CORAM:
                        DR. JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
                        MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                          ORDER

Order No. 05.01.2022

10. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

3. The petitioner files this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the opposite party no.2 in Annexure-2 and also consequential orders suspending the petitioner's storage and transportation of mineral license passed by the opposite party nos. 3, 6 and 8 under Annexure-3 series.

4. Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while passing order in Annexure-2 dated 17.06.2013, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and as such, the licence granted in favour of the petitioner has been suspended under Rule 9 of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007 (for

// 2 //

short 'Rules'). It is contended that before suspending the license, opportunity of hearing has not been given in compliance to the principles of natural justice. To substantiate his case, he relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in M/s. Rashmi Cement Limited v. State of Orissa and others, 113(2012) CLT 177.

5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate, per contra, contended that suspension order has been passed under Rule-9 of the aforesaid Rules in compliance to the principles of natural justice and also relied upon the notice to show-cause issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-E/1 series, which is placed on record in the counter filed by him on 29.04.2013, but the mode of service of such document on the petitioner has not been indicated nor anything placed on record in that regard.. For that reason, this Court made a query that what is mode of service to show-cause to the petitioner by the opposite parties. To answer this point, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate seeks for time to obtain instructions and file affidavit with regard to service of letter at Annexure-E/1 dated 29.04.2013.

5. List this matter on 17.01.2022.

(DR. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge pcd