Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 16 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. S. Das, Senior Advocate
along with Ms. Sobhna Das,
Advocate for O.P. No.7
Ms. Aishwarya Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
for State
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 23rd July, 2025
Date of Judgment : 16th October, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is
whether the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada, Udala is competent to take
any decision or pass any direction after the amendment having
brought in Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short
'OMMC Rules, 2016') by virtue of the Odisha Minor Minerals
Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 (in short 'Amended
Rules, 2022'), which was duly published in the Odisha Gazette
Extraordinary dated 28th December, 2022.
2. A prelude to the litigation involving the question of law as
indicated hereinabove is adumbrated for the purpose of clarity and
brevity. Pursuant to the auction notice for two sand sairats, i.e.
Dighi-2 Sand bed and Parikhitpur Sand bed, the petitioner offered
his bid and was adjudged as the highest bidder. However, the
authority could not proceed to settle the query in favour of the
petitioner because of intervening litigations ensued before this Court
raising an issue with regard to the solvency certificate submitted by
the petitioner and restrained order passed in such litigations. Amidst
the pendency of the litigations before this Court, the amendments
were brought into the OMMC Rules, 2016 duly notified/published
in the Odisha Gazette Extraordinary on 27th December, 2022. By
virtue of such amendments effected by the Amended Rules, 2022,
the definition of the competent authority has undergone a sea change
so also the powers to deal with the mining issues across the State.
The summum bonum of such amendments can be reasonably
visualized from such amendments that the mines within the State of
Odisha which was being dealt with by the Tahasildar and other
authorities were transferred to Steel and Mines Department thereby
all the issues pertaining to the mines were to be dealt by such
department and the authorities posted therein. So far as the Un-
amended Rules, 2016 is concerned, the Tahasildars and the Sub-
Collectors of the respective districts were empowered to take a
decision and deal with the mines including the sand query but after
the amendments having brought on 27th December, 2022 wherever
the word 'Tahasildar' was appearing therein was deleted/omitted
and substituted by the 'competent authorities/authorised officer' as
per the definition assigned by virtue of an amended rules.
3. The point as indicated in the preceding paragraph of the
judgment gets attracted after the litigations concerning the said sand
sairats was finally disposed of on 21st June, 2024. Yet, the
Tahasildar and/or the Sub-Collector proceeded to take a decision in
respect of the auction held prior to the Amended Rules that too on
the basis of directions/instructions issued by the Mining Officer who
was competent to deal with such aspect on the strength of the
Amended Rules intervened in the interregnum.
4. It would be unnecessarily rendered the judgment bulky on
the narration of the facts and the correspondences exchanged
between the Mining Officer and the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector as the
facts can be reasonably and/or succinctly revealed that despite the
transition of the powers, the Mining Officer reverted the issues to be
decided by the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector having aware that the
power to deal with the sand query under the said OMMC Rules,
2016 has undergone an amendment conferring the power upon it.
5. The Amended Rules, 2022, which came into effect on the
date of the notification duly published in the Odisha Gazette,
Extraordinary on 27th December, 2022 resonated the authority and
power, which was conferred upon the Tahasildar/sub-Collector in
the Pre-Amended Rules, to have been taken away and vested upon
the Mining Officer.
6. Before we proceed to decide the seminal point as indicated
hereinbefore, we feel it prudent to ascertain as to whether the
Mining Officer can divert such authority and/or power to the
Tahasildar/Sub-Collector.
7. The Amended Rules, 2022 does not contain any provision
for delegation of the powers by the Mining Officer to any other
authorised officer dehors the Steel and Mines Department and in
absence of any power of delegation, whether the Tahasildar/Sub-
Collector can assume such power is the first and foremost point
involved in the instant writ petition. Rule-13 of the Amended Rules,
2022 brings an amendment in Rule-66 by inserting Sub-Rule (3)
thereof, which provides that till the new system is put in place, the
existing arrangement would continue. The said Sub-Rule (3) of
Rule-66 starts with non obstante clause, which can be reasonably
understood that it has an overriding effect and till the time the entire
newly inserted system is activated, the old system would continue,
thereby the power and the competency of the authority at the pre-
amended stage would continue to discharge such duties and
functions as if such amendment has not taken place nor given effect
to.
8. It is undeniable that the auction notice was published before
the amendment having brought into the said Rules, but could not
reach to its final destination because of intervening litigations
ensued before this Court, which received quietus on 21 st June, 2024.
The counter affidavits filed by the respective opposite parties
manifestly indicate that by virtue of a notification No.3801 dated 1st
February, 2023 issued by the Department of R & DM, the
administrative control over the sairat involving the minor minerals
were transferred to the Steel and Mines Department from the
Revenue and Disaster Management Department and the modalities
were evolved to transfer the records pertaining to the sairats, which
were litigation free. It is thus abundantly clear from the aforesaid
stand taken by the opposite parties that on disposal of the pending
writ petition, the records pertaining to the sairat being the subject
matter of the instant writ petition was to be dealt by the Mines
Department and all the records pertaining thereto is required to be
transferred to the Mines Department by the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department. In fact, such steps were taken by the
Tahasildar/Sub-Collector but interestingly the Mining Department
reverted the same to the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector to continue and
finalize the auction process and take a decision on the complaint
having lodged including the finalization of the tender by awarding
the sand sairat rights in favour of the participants therein. The record
would reveal that the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector proceeded to take
such decision and issued several letters, which are challenged in the
instant writ petition and decided to grant the sand sairat right in
favour of the second highest bidder although the petitioner was
initially declared as the first highest bidder.
9. It is undeniable that the petitioner replied to such letters
issued by the Tahasildar/the Collectors and District Magistrate
responding to the queries and/or the allegations made therein and a
final decision was also taken that the petitioner is incompetent to
participate in the auction notice pertaining to the sand sairat being
the subject matter of dispute and such decision was duly
communicated to the Mining Department. Interestingly, the Mining
Officer on 12th June, 2025 wrote a letter to the Director of Minor
Minerals seeking necessary instructions as to whether the
recommendation of the Tender Opening Committee (in short
'TOC') with regard to the settlement/execution of the sairat source
in favour of the second highest bidder should be considered or not as
per the OMMC Rules, 2016 and the amendment having brought in
the meantime. It does not appear from the record that any reply to
the same or a final decision is taken thereupon as the petitioner
chose to challenge the letters dated 3rd October 2024, 8th October
2024, and 8th November, 2024 respectively issued by the Sub-
Collector, Kaptipada on the ground of its competency and/or
authority.
10. There is no scintilla of doubt that an authority tracing power
from the statutory rules cannot exercise any powers dehors such
rules. The statutory authority cannot transgress the boundaries of the
statutory provisions in exercising the powers conferred therein nor
can assume any power not provided in the said statutory rules. The
authority has to travel within the four corners of the statutory
provisions as any action or the decision taken in excess of the
powers so conferred entails interference by the competent court. In
absence of any power of delegation reserved in the statutory rules,
the competent authority cannot delegate the power to an authority
not contemplated in the statutory document. The power of
delegation must emanate from the statutory provision and unless
such power is provided in the statutory rules, the competent
authority cannot delegate such power upon the authority, which is
kept outside the purview of the said Act.
11. The Tahasildar or the Sub-Collector, who was regarded as
the competent authority at the pre-amended stage, cannot continue
to discharge the duties and functions under the said statutory rules
after the amendment having brought and the power is diverted to
another authority. It is inconceivable that the competent authority
reverted the entire issue to the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector to take a
decision in respect of a pending auction, which can be perceived
without any reasonably doubt that the power so reserved upon the
said authority is being delegated and/or diverted to an authority not
competent under the aforesaid Rules. Mere participation in
responding to the queries and/or the allegations made by an
authority not competent under the statutory rules does not cloath
such powers nor can assume such powers if not provided in the
statute. The conferment of the powers or jurisdiction can never be
made on the basis of a conduct or consent as the statutory authorities
are duty bound to discharge the duties and the functions so conferred
by the statutory document.
12. Such being the proposition of law as understood, we find
justification in the stand taken by the Mining Officer, Mayurbhanj,
Baripada in causing a letter dated 12th June, 2025 to the Director of
Minor Minerals seeking an opinion or a decision as to whether the
recommendation of the TOC obviously constituted prior to the
amendment brought in the year 2022 can be considered after such
amendment having put in place. There is no response, at least does
not appear from the record, from the said authority and, therefore, it
can be safely understood that the ball is within the court of the
competent authority at the unfinalized stage.
13. We thus find that the Tahasildar/Sub-Collector is neither
competent nor assumes the powers after the amendment having
brought in the year 2022 and, therefore, the decisions or steps taken
by them in issuing the said impugned notices or taking any decisions
subsequent thereto are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained
in law.
14. The Tahasildar/Sub-Collector is directed to transfer all the
records to the Mining Department and the Competent Authority
under the Amended Rules, 2022 shall take a fresh decision after
adhering the principles of natural justice within four weeks from the
Signature date of the communication of the judgment.
Not Verified
Digitally Signed 15. The writ petition is thus disposed of.
Signed by:
MRUTYUNJAYA
PANDA
Designation: Secretary,
Orissa High Court
Reason: Authentication I agree.
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Oct-2025
14:48:37
(M.R. Pathak) (Harish Tandon)
Judge Chief Justice
M. Panda
