Orissa High Court
Kunja Tirkey vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 12 December, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25993 of 2023
Kunja Tirkey ... Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 12.12.2023
03. 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State-Opposite Parties and Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel
for Opposite Party No.5.
2. The petitioner files this writ petition challenging the execution
of lease deed in favour of the single bidder namely, Opposite Party
No.5.
3. Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the authority, though
four bidders participated in the process of bid but three of them
disqualified which is apparent from Annexure-3 dated 06.10.2020.
Opposite Party No.5 remained as single bidder but the authority
has settled the bid in his favour by executing the agreement on
02.02.2023 under Annexure-6. It is further contended that against
the disqualification order dated 06.10.2020 the petitioner moved
the authority by filing a representation. Without disposing of the
said representation, the authority has settled the sairat source in
favour the single bidder which is arbitrary, unreasonable and
contrary to the provisions of law. It is contended that since the
petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the tender authority in
selecting opposite party No.5 by executing the lease deed with
him, he has filed a representation before the authority instead of
preferring appeal under Rule 46 of the Odisha Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules) were not taken into
consideration. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in M/s.
Debabrata Samal v. State of Odisha , 2017 (II) ILR CUT 231;
Rangadhar Pradhan v. State of Odisha, AIR 2021 Ori. 113 and
the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Cwe-
Soma Consortium, AIR 2016 SC 3366.
4. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties relying upon the bid sheet,
which is a part of Annexure-1 to the writ application contended
that admittedly there were four bidders, but three were
disqualified. Therefore, the same was settled in favour of Opposite
Party No.5. Though highest bid was made at Rs.267/- but the same
was finalized at Rs.247/- i.e. in favour of Opposite Party No.5.
5. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite
party no.5 vehemently contended before the Court that even
though the opposite party No.5 is a single bidder, the lease deed
has been executed on that basis and he is now operating the quarry.
Thereby, it is contended that once the lease has been executed it
has to complete the terms in view of the lease deed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record, we are of the view that since the
opposite party No.5 is a single bidder as has been admitted by
State-opposite parties as well as opposite party No.5 itself, the said
lease deed in favour of opposite party No.5 cannot sustain in the
eye of law and is liable to be quashed in view of the law laid down
by the apex Court as well as by this Court Cwe-Soma Consortium,
M/s. Debabrata Samal and Rangadhar Pradhan (supra).
7. In view of the above position of law, the lease so settled in
favour of opposite party No.5 stands quashed. The writ petition is
accordingly disposed of.
8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
SK Jena/Secy.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 14-Dec-2023 14:25:39
