The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20655 of 2025 Kasinath Dhanwar …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- 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 J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 1 of 13 2. The sequel of events emanating from the record would reveal that pursuant to the auction notice dated 4th 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 21st 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)
Decision
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 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 2 of 13 on 23rd March, 2023 and the said appeal was kept pending for more than a year until the first order was passed on 30th July, 2024 directing the parties to appear and argue on the next date. On 13th 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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 3 of 13 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: W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 4 of 13 “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 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 5 of 13 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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 6 of 13 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 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 7 of 13 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 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 8 of 13 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 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 9 of 13 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 Range Village/Forest 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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 10 of 13 (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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 11 of 13 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. W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 12 of 13 18. We thus find the order impugned in the instant writ petition unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 19. 20. The writ petition is allowed. 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) Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice S.K. Jena/Secy S.K. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:10:46 W.P.(C) No. 20655 of 2025 Page 13 of 13