Orissa High Court
Kasinath Dhanwar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 18 August, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20655 of 2025
Kasinath Dhanwar .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Ms. Aishwarya Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 18th August, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The writ petition challenging the order dated 9th June, 2025
passed by the Deputy Director of Mines, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela
in rejecting R.A. No.14 of 2023 is filed by the unsuccessful bidder
primarily on the ground that the appellate authority has committed
grave error in rejecting the said appeal solely on the ground of
limitation.
2. The sequel of events emanating from the record would
reveal that pursuant to the auction notice dated 4 th March, 2022
published by the opposite party No.4 for settlement of Teterkala
Sand Bed Quarry under Biramitrapur Tahasil of Sundargarh district,
the petitioner offered his bid. The bid was opened on 21 st March,
2022 and the opposite party No.5 was declared as a successful
bidder. The lease deed was also executed in favour of the said
opposite party. Subsequently, the petitioner, after coming to know of
several discrepancies, disparities and the illegalities committed by
the authorities, applied for a certified copy of the entire order sheet
concerning the said auction, which was initially kept in abeyance but
subsequent to the persuasion including the orders passed by this
Court, the certified copy was handed over. After noticing the
irregularities and/or illegalities, the writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.5473 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of
on 6th March, 2023 as the petitioner has a remedy by filing an appeal
under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (in short,
„OMMC Rules‟) and, therefore, a liberty was granted to the
petitioner to pursue such remedy before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law. Pursuant to the said liberty having granted, the
appeal was filed before the Sub-Collector being R.A. No.14 of 2023
on 23rd March, 2023 and the said appeal was kept pending for more
than a year until the first order was passed on 30 th July, 2024
directing the parties to appear and argue on the next date. On 13 th
August, 2024 the Sub-Collector after recording the facts emerged
from the record categorically observed that the competent authority
has not categorically observed the formalities as per the rules before
going for selection of the successful bidder in the said auction and at
the same time, the highest bidder (now lessee) has also violated the
basic principles framed for the auction process, but even after such
observations as narrated above, the said appellate authority being a
Sub-Collector, Panposh arrived at the final conclusion that there is
no scope to consider the prayer of the petitioner due to lack of
jurisdiction. The said order was further assailed by the petitioner
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.26800 of 2024 which was disposed
of on 12th May, 2025. Interestingly, a plea was taken by the learned
Additional Government Advocate (AGA) that the administrative
control of the minor mineral including the sand sairat has been
transferred to the Steel and Mines Department, Government of
Odisha vide notification dated 28th December, 2022 and, therefore,
on the date of the filing of the appeal, the Sub-Collector was not
competent to continue with the appeal and decide the same.
3. Learned AGA also supported the stand of the petitioner that
the order rendered by the Sub-Collector is without jurisdiction and
taking into account the aforesaid stand taken by the respective
parties, the writ petition was disposed of quashing and setting aside
the said order dated 13th August, 2023 and direction was passed
upon the Sub-Collector, Panposh to transmit the records pertaining
to R.A. No.14 of 2023 to the Dy. Director of Mines, Sundargarh. It
was further observed that the said appellate authority shall
adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law and the parties were
permitted to take all the pleas relating to fact or law as may be. The
impugned order passed by the said authority is not on the merit but
on the technicalities namely applying the period of limitation as a
barrier in invoking the jurisdiction.
4. It is beyond cavil of doubt that Rule 46 of the OMMC Rules
provides the remedy by way of an appeal before the competent
authority in the prescribed form appended thereto within one month
from the date of the communication of the order. The forum of
appeal is also indicated in the said provision depending upon the
authority passing an order and the conditions to be strictly adhered
to. It would be apposite to quote Rule 46 of the said Rules, which
runs thus:
"46. Procedure for filing appeal:-- (1) Any person
aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority, may,
within one month form the date of communication of the
order, prefer an appeal in Form-X against such order,
to the Conservator of Forest, if the order is passed by
the Divisional Forest Officer, to the Deputy Director, if
the order is passed by the Mining Officer, to the
Director, if the order is passed by the Deputy Director
and to the State Government in the Department of Steel
and Mines, if the order is passed by the Director:
(2) No appeal shall be admitted unless the amount, if
any, assessed in accordance with the provisions of these
rules as per the orders, has been deposited.
(3) The Appellate Authority mentioned under sub-
rule(1) may call for relevant records and other
information from the concerned authority and may, if
considered necessary, stay the operation of the order of
the authority in any particular case till the appeal is
finally disposed or until further orders are passed, as
the case may be.
(4) Every application for appeal shall be accompanied
by a non-refundable fee of rupees one thousand.
(5) In the event of any dispute relating to the area,
conditions, the dues payable or any other matters under
the prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining
lease or quarry lease executed for the purpose, the suits
or appeals shall be filed only in the civil courts in whose
jurisdiction such area falls."
5. There is no ambiguity on a bare reading of the language used
in the said provision that the appeal has to be filed in the prescribed
form within the period of limitation as enshrined therein but the
parties or their respective counsel are not ad idem on the
interpretation of the expressions "date of communication of the
order". According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order
was never communicated and the moment the said order came to be
known, the certified copy was immediately applied and after
obtaining the certified copy, the appeal was filed before the
appellate forum.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel learned AGA appearing
for the State submits that the communication is synonym of
knowledge and once the petitioner was aware of the decision taken
on 21st March, 2022 that his bid is rejected and the bid of the
opposite party No.5 was accepted, the appeal has to be filed within
one month from the said date and, therefore, there is no illegality
and/or infirmity in the order of the competent authority in rejecting
the appeal on the ground of limitation.
7. Learned AGA drew inspiration from the provisions
contained under Rule 27(6) of the OMMC Rules providing
intimation to be given by the competent authority within seven days
in a prescribed form to the selected bidder about the selection and
the terms and conditions of the lease. According to learned AGA,
such communication is relatable to a successful bidder and,
therefore, the expression "date of communication" has to be read
conjointly with the said provision. We are amazed and surprised on
such notion having projected before us.
8. There appears to be an incongruity and/or fallacy in the
submission of the learned AGA in taking aid of Rule 27(6) of the
said Rule for interpretation of the expressions or the words used in
Rule 46 thereof. Even if, we accept the above contention of the
learned AGA for the purpose of argument that the date of opening of
the bid in presence of the bidders shall be construed as a
communication, it runs counter to the spirit and the soul of the
language used in the said statutory rules. If the communication is
akin to knowledge, there was no necessity of making further
communication in a prescribed form under Rule 27(6) of the said
Rules. The language used in Rule 27(6) of the said Rules suggests
that it is not only the communication that you have been adjudged as
a successful bidder but also the terms and conditions of the lease is
required to be communicated. If the communication of selecting the
bidder as the successful bidder is perceived on the date of the
opening of the bid, the word „intimation‟ in a prescribed form about
the selection appears to be a farcical approach.
9. We, thus, do not find there is any symmetry which could be
created between Rule 27(6) and Rule 46 of the OMMC Rules, which
stands on a different footing and has its applicability in different
contingencies and/or eventualities. Form-F appearing in Rule 27(6)
is an intimation to a successful bidder that he has been selected as a
successful bidder for Prospecting License-cum-Mining Lease and
the terms and conditions of such lease to be accept to proceed for
execution of the lease deed. If the intimation is also construed as the
knowledge, the said form would not have contained the word that
the successful bidder has been selected as it was always within its
knowledge that he has been selected.
10. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that if the things
are required to be done in a prescribed manner, it has to be done in
such manner as any infraction and/or departure therefrom may entail
such action of the authorities liable to be interfered with. (See Nazir
Ahmed Vrs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253.)
11. Reverting to Rule 46 of the said Rules, the period of
limitation would reckon only from the date of the communication of
the order and not from the date of the order as commonly applied in
ordinary situations. The moment the statutes expressly provide the
commencement of the limitation, it has to be construed strictly as
the right of appeal emanates from a statutory provision and such
right should not be defeated by taking an external aid. The
communication is further qualified with the word „order‟ and,
therefore, any segregation within the statutory provision should be
eschewed. The interpretative tools should not be used in such
pedantic manner, which would render such provision unworkable or
redundant. The right of remedy is a valuable right provided in the
statute which should not be defeated by taking an interpretation
which would render such remedy merely on paper. The date of
communication of the order appearing in Rule 46 of the said Rules
has to be given a literal meaning and the word of general importance
has to be interpreted in such ordinary sense, unless such word is
expressly defined in the said statute. The date of communication of
an order is integral part of providing an appeal or exhausting the
remedy of an appeal by an aggrieved person and, therefore, such
date would be relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the period of
limitation.
12. Rule 46 of the said Rules as quoted above further provides
the appeal to be filed in a prescribed form i.e. Form X, which
expressly contains the column relating to the date of communication
of the order in the following:
"FORM - X
Form of Appeal
[See rule 46(1)]
(To be submitted in triplicate)
1. Name and address of the individual /firm/company......................
2. (a) Full details of the order and the authority passing the order
against which the appeal or revision application is made
(certified copy to be enclosed) .............................
(b) Date of communication of the above order:
3. Minerals/Minerals forming the subject matter of the appeal.........
4. Details of the area in respect of which the appeal is filed (A plan
of the area to be attached).
Sl.No. District/ Forest Division Tahasil/Forest Village/Forest
Range Block
5. Is the appeal filed within one month of the date of the order of the
Competent Authority/Controlling Authority?
6. If not, the reasons for not presenting it within the prescribed time.
7. (a) Name and complete address of the party/parties impleaded.
(b) Reasons for impleading him/ them shall be mentioned.
(c) An additional copy of the appeal application for each
impleaded party is to be submitted.
8. Has the applicant deposited the amount, if any, assessed in
accordance with provisions of Odisha Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 20.....as per the orders appealed ? If so, the details thereon.
9. If the application is signed by an authorized agent of the
applicant, an attested copy of power of attorney shall be attached.
10. Whether application fee of rupees one thousand has been
deposited? If so, original receipted challan
no...........dated...............of the State Bank of India/Treasury.............
is enclosed.
Place:
Date: Signature and designation of the applicant"
13. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the
knowledge is akin to a communication, there would not have any
occasion to incorporate any express stipulation in the prescribed
format for the purpose of computation of the limitation period. If the
intimation is required to be communicated to a successful bidder in a
prescribed form under Rule-27(6) despite being physically present
on the date of opening of the bid, we see no reason that the
communication of the order would be construed to have been given
on the date of the opening of the bid.
14. We do not find any rational into the submission of the State
in this regard.
15. The sequel of events exposits that the certified copy was
applied for and obtained after a long gap, which is sine qua non for
maintaining an appeal before the appellate authority and the
appellate authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merit at one
go, but did not pass the ultimate order as it was engulfed in between
the remedy and the jurisdiction and proceeded to dismiss the said
appeal on the ground of jurisdiction.
16. The High Court quashed and set aside the said order and
directed to the said competent authority to transmit all the records to
the competent authority which, in fact, was duly complied with.
17. The moment the said record is transmitted and/or transferred
to a competent authority, it is an ardent duty of the competent
authority to proceed and decide the matter on merit. Even for the
sake of argument, we accept the contention of the competent
authority that the appeal was beyond the period of limitation, it must
specify from the record that when the date of the order was
communicated on the petitioner and if such findings have not been
arrived, the competent authority is not justified in computing the
period of limitation from the date when the bid was opened.
18. We thus find the order impugned in the instant writ petition
unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
19. The writ petition is allowed.
20. The appeal is restored to its original file. The competent
authority is directed to decide the said appeal on merit, as we do not
find that the plea of limitation taken by him is sustainable in law.
The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the
date of the communication of this judgment.
(M.S. Raman) (Harish Tandon)
Judge Chief Justice
S.K. Jena/Secy
S.K. Behera
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack
Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:10:46
