The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Dillip Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- 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 J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 1 of 10 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. W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 2 of 10 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 W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 3 of 10 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. W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 4 of 10 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-
Legal Reasoning
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 21st June, 2024. W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 5 of 10 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 W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 6 of 10 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- W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 7 of 10 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 W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 8 of 10 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 W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 9 of 10 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 date of the communication of the judgment. 15.
Decision
The writ petition is thus disposed of. I agree. (M.R. Pathak) Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice W.P.(C) No.9874 of 2025 Page 10 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary, Orissa High Court Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Oct-2025 14:48:37 M. Panda