[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dr. Chinmay Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 4936 of 2026
Dr. Chinmay Mohapatra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Udaya Senapati, Advocate
For Opposite Parties-State : Mr. Sanjay Rath, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 19th March, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. A disgruntled litigant has approached this Court assailing
the action of the authorities in disposing of the seized minor minerals
through public auction held on 27th January, 2026 solely on the
ground that a reasonable opportunity to participate in the said
auction process was denied and/or refused by the authorities. It is a
specific case made out in the instant writ petition that after the
seizure of the minor minerals, a notice for holding the public auction
was published on 23rd January, 2026 that the said auction would be
held on 24th January, 2026 but the said date being a public holiday,
the same was not held on the said date. Subsequently, the auction
was held on 27th January, 2026 and an objection was made in the
form of a representation/application to the Tahasildar, Pipili that the
petitioner could not comply with the requisite conditions of
furnishing the demand draft while participating in the public auction
as the employees of the State Bank of India were on a strike.
2. The authorities decided to proceed with the public auction
and declared the successful bidder thereat. On 29th January, 2026, an
application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was
taken out by the petitioner, which is also annexed as Annexure-5 to
the instant writ petition.
3. Mr. Anup Udaya Senapati, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner vociferously submits that a reasonable time
must be given before holding the auction and since the petitioner
was prevented from participating in the auction process for the
reasons beyond his control, such auction must be declared invalid,
illegal and unreasonable.
4. We pondered upon the issue when a plea of denial of a
reasonable opportunity to participate in the public auction is raised in
the writ petition and invited the attention of Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned
Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the
opposite parties-State to respond to the said contentions.
5. It is revealed from the instructions received by Mr. Rath,
learned AGA that though the date for auction was fixed on 24th
January, 2026 but the same being declared as a public holiday, a
further notification was issued fixing a date on 27th January, 2026 as
25th and 26th January, 2026 were public holidays.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner took
shelter under Rule 48 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which provides
for the disposal of the seized minor minerals through public auction
by an authority as specified in Schedule-IV thereto. Serial No.2 of
Schedule-IV which encompasses the minor minerals other than the
specified minor minerals, the competent authority is shown as the
Mining Officer of the respective jurisdiction when the seizure is
within the village boundaries.
7. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel further took the shelter under
Rule 51 of the Rules having a broad "penalties" to buttress the
submission that the auction can only be held if no person claims the
mineral or the other property so seized within thirty (30) days before
it proceeds to dispose of the same through public auction. He, thus,
submits that the seizure was made at a point of time and the public
auction was held, the entire exercise was within thirty (30) days and,
therefore, offends the said provision of the Rules.
8. We are unable to comprehend the notion derived from the
reading of the aforesaid provisions for the simple reason that Rule 48
of the said Rules does not provide any timeline within which or after
which the public auction is to be held. The said provision is general
and omnibus in nature having found in Chapter-VII, i.e., the
Miscellaneous matter and, therefore, one has to interpret the said
provision bearing in mind the object of the legislation and placing of
different provisions of the sections or the rules.
9. Rule 48 of the Rules, 2016 empowers the authority
specified in Schedule-IV to dispose of the same through public
auction, provided the minor minerals were found to be illegally
extracted and seizure was made by the appropriate authority. It also
contains a deeming provision relating to the vesting of the ownership
of those minor minerals into the Government. The moment the
provision is explicit, clear and invites no ambiguity in ascertaining
the meaning as well as the legislative intention, the Court shall
proceed on the basis thereof and should avoid inclusion and/or
exclusion of any word or expression therefrom.
10. Since no timeline is fixed in Rule 48 of the said Rules and a
power is conferred upon the authority mentioned therein to dispose
of the same through public auction after the minor mineral is seized,
we do not find that giving a shorter period for a public auction would
invalidate the entire exercise.
11. So far as Rule 51 of the said Rules is concerned, sub-rule
(1) thereof conveys a laudable intention of the maker of the law that
if any person is found extracting and/or transporting any minor
minerals in violation of the said Rules, it would be presumed that the
said extraction and/or transportation and/or removal is illegal and
invites a prosecution under the criminal jurisprudence. The said sub-
rule (1) provides the Simple Imprisonment for a period which may
extend to two years or the fine may be imposed which may extend to
rupees fifty lakhs and in the event the circumstance so warrants, it is
open to a competent Court to impose both.
12. The moment the period of simple punishment coupled with
the imposition of fine is provided in the statute, it leads to a normal
corollary that the order for simple imprisonment cannot be passed by
an Administrative authority. The prosecution has to be made under
the criminal law and the Court is competent to pass an order for
simple imprisonment of a person, as no person can be put behind the
bar without an order of the Court. This would further be
corroborated from Clause-III of sub-rule (1) of the said Rules,
providing that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under these rules except on a complaint in writing made
by such officers or authorities mentioned under Clause-II thereof.
13. It is manifest from the meaningful reading of the said
provisions that a cognizance of a criminal offence can only be taken
on the basis of a complaint filed in writing by an officer inviting the
simple imprisonment which may extend to two years or fine having
a maximum cap of rupees fifty lakhs or both and, therefore, such
provisions cannot be applied and/or conferred power upon the
authority.
14. The shelter appears to have been taken under Clause-VI of
the said sub-rule (1) of Rule 51 of the said Rules postulating that if
no person claims the minor mineral or other property so seized
within a period of thirty (30) days, the authority competent to
compound the offence may confiscate the same to the State and
dispose of the same through public auction. The said provision
relates to compounding of an offence which has already been
initiated before the jurisdictional Court and the moment the
complaint in writing is made to the Court for taking cognizance, the
disposal cannot be made unless a time period provided therein
expires.
15. It is trite law that when two provisions of the same rules of
the statute provided different modalities and/or the modes of
exercise of such power or in the event confers powers upon the
different authorities, such power cannot be usurped and/or exercised
by the other authority not mentioned in the specific provision. If the
power appears to have been given on the Court to do a thing in a
certain manner, the authority cannot usurp such power by taking aid
of the said provision, as exclusion of the name or being conscious of
omission from the said statutory provision implies that the said
power is not conferred upon any authority other than the authority
mentioned therein.
16. In our opinion, the shelter under Rule 51 and the sub-
clauses mentioned therein, in the factual matrix of the instant case is
misplaced, as both the provisions contained under Rule 48 and Rule
51 operate in different spheres and cannot either override each other
or subvert the other in exercise of the powers.
17. We further notice that the petitioner was physically present
at the time of the auction held on 27th January, 2026 and the moment
he felt that he would be prevented from participating in the auction
as he is not possessed of the requisite demand draft, he immediately
filed an application before the Tahasildar. The said attempt on the
part of the petitioner shall not enure to any benefit for the reason that
in terms of Rule 48 of the said Rules, the auction can be conducted
by an authority mentioned in Schedule-IV and the Tahasildar has no
power to hold the auction under the said statutory provisions. The
approach to a wrong authority does not create any inchoate right into
the person and, therefore, we do not find any justification in the
stand that the objection was immediately raised at the time of
holding the auction. Subsequent application under the RTI Act does
not absolve the responsibilities nor would create any right into the
petitioner to thwart the entire auction already held on 27th January,
2026 and, therefore, the reference thereof may not improve the case
of the petitioner.
18. It appears that five persons in fact participated at the time of
said auction on the date so fixed having the requisite bank draft
issued by their respective banks and, therefore, we do not find that
the auction which has already been held and further actions have
already been taken in accepting the bid and creating a right into the
person, the same warrants any interference at this stage.
19. We, thus, do not find any grounds for interference. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances with no
order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
Digitally Signed (M.S. Raman)
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 26-Mar-2026 18:51:48
S. Behera
