Soumendranandan Das Mohapatra … v. ….. Mr. Aswini Patnaik, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA & Mr. P.P
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13863 of 2012 Soumendranandan Das Mohapatra ….. Petitioner Union of India and others Vs. ….. Mr. Aswini Patnaik, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA & Mr. P.P. Behera, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 06.04.2024 Order No. 26. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Central Government Council. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare Rule-27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as ultra vires to the provisions of the Act, 1957, to quash the order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Steel & Mines Department-opposite party no.2 under Annexure-63; to quash the order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda under Annexure-64 and to direct the opposite parties to transmit the records relating to the passing of the impugned order dated 18.06.2012. 4. Though several prayers have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition, but when the matter was taken up on 20.09.2022, Page 1 of 5 learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to the effect as has been reflected in the order dated 20.09.2022 and the same is extracted hereunder. “This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset raised preliminary objection contending that the order impugned has been passed by the Addl. Secretary to Government though the same was heard by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Steel and Mines, Govt. of Odisha. He has also referred to the documents available on record, i.e., the letter dated 01.10.2011 under Annexure-58 and the letter dated 21.03.2012 at page- 473 of the writ petition, where the Under Secretary to Government communicated the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines on 03.11.2011 and 11.04.2012 respectively. Therefore, it is contended that the Addl. Secretary to Government, Department of Steel and Mines, cannot and could not have passed the order impugned under Annexure-63 series, which is at page- 493 of the writ petition. 3. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently contended that the Commissioner- cum-Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines heard the matter and also delivered the judgment, but the order has been communicated, by the order of the Governor, by the Addl. Secretary to Government, Department of Steel and Mines, reason being the lease was executed between the petitioner and the Governor and, thereby, the lease can only be cancelled by the Governor. Therefore, by order of the Governor, the Addl. Secretary to Government, Department of Steel and Mines has only communicated the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines, which is available on the record itself. impugned passed by the order 4. In the above view of the matter, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties is directed to verify the original record and produce the same at the time of hearing along with an affidavit indicating that the order Page 2 of 5 impugned has been passed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines, by the next date. 5. List this matter after one week. 5. In response to the said order, Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that Additional Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Steel & Mines Department on 21.11.2023, wherein at paragraphs-3 to 7, it has stated as follows:- “3. That the State Government vide Notice dated 26.11.2010 issued a show cause notice under Rule 27 (5) of MC Rules, 1960 calling upon the lessee to show cause as to why the lease shall not be determined for violation of lease conditions. Additionally, it was called upon to show cause as to why the amounts shall not be recovered under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act 1957. It was also found that the lessee had violated Rule 37 of the MCR, 1960 whereby the lessee had transferred the mineral rights of the lease to JM Mining and Trading Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining permission from the State Government. 4. That subsequent to the show cause notice, the Lessee submitted its reply on 27.01.2011 and thereafter vide letter no. 7769 dated 01.11.2011, the State Government issued a notice for personal hearing to the lessee inviting the lessee to appear before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Steel and Mines Department on 03.11.201l at 4 pm for personal hearing. Page 3 of 5 5. That subsequently the final hearing was conducted on 11.04.2012 by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Subsequent to the hearing, a Record of Notes was prepared delivering the Judgment/ impugned Order. The same was placed for approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, which was approved on 18.05.2012 for communication to the lessee. 6. That after the aforementioned approval, the proceedings were prepared, which was finally communicated to the Lessee vide memo No. 4411 dated I8.06.2012. 7. That in view of the above it is humbly submitted that the hearing was conducted by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Steel and Mines Department, and subsequently the order impugned directing the determination of the lease has also been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Steel and Mines Department.” 6. In view of the above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed by the Additional Secretary, is of no basis. More particularly, learned Additional Government Advocate produced the record, which reveals that Government of Odisha in Steel & Mines Department has dealt with the proposal for issue of 60 days notice under Rule 27 (5) of the M.C. Rules, 1960 in respect of Mining Lease for Manganese ore over an area of 36.474 Hects in Village-Katasahi-Kolha Rudukela of Keonjhar District held by the petitioner where the order impugned Page 4 of 5 has been placed on record. Pages-270 to 257 has been prepared by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary himself. After perusal of the record so produced, the same is returned to Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Advocate in Court itself. 7.
Decision
In view of the above, the objection which has been raised by the petitioner that it has not been signed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary is not correct. The order has been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, but the same has been communicated by the Additional Secretary. Therefore, the objection so raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. In the name filing objection to the affidavit dated 21.11.2023, the petitioner has raised some other questions, which he has already forgone earlier and only confined to the impugned order itself. Therefore, there is no relevancy to deal with the same at this stage. As consequence thereof, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record or of the order, which has been passed by the Commissioner. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Arun Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Apr-2024 17:23:12 JUDGE (DR. B.R. SARANGI) (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Page 5 of 5