Orissa High Court
WP(C)/24530/2026 of MOHAMMAD JUNAID Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 18 August 2026
of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24530 of 2026 ODHC010586422026 Mohammad Junaid …. Petitioner Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ananya Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 24530 of 2026
ODHC010586422026
Mohammad Junaid
….
Petitioner
Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18.08.2026
01.
1. Leave is granted to Ms. Ananya Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to correct the descriptions of the opposite parties No.2, 4 and 5 appearing in the cause title of the instant writ petition here and now.
2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the period of lease granted in his favour for a sand sairat as he was prevented from operating the same for a pretty long time because of unavailability of communicating roads for transportation of sand from the said sairat source.
3. Our attention is drawn to several representations made in this regard which have fallen on deaf ears, as the authorities did not take any step to remove the difficulties highlighted by the petitioner in those representations. It also appears from the record that there was an encroachment on the pathway or the road, which impedes and creates a hindrance in the movement of the vehicles and the authorities subsequently removed such encroachment and found that there is no fetter on the part of the petitioner to operate the sand sairat.
4. A letter was issued on 8th July, 2026 by the Mining Officer, Minor Minerals, Kendrapada for resumption of mining operation at Alapua Brahmani Nadi Sand Sairat Source. The word ‘resumption’ appearing in the said letter denotes that the operation of the sand sairat was hindered and admittedly the petitioner could not operate the same.
5. Had it been the stand of the State that the petitioner was not prevented by any obstruction in continuing with the mining operation, the word ‘resumption’ would not have appeared in the said letter. It connotes that the petitioner may start the mining operation from the said sand sairat and the period so lost is sought to be extended with several representations made to the authorities. Admittedly, the period of the lease has not been expired as the petitioner can operate the sand sairat for the remaining period, provided in the lease deed, which is further corroborated by the said letter dated 8th July, 2026.
6. The seminal point raised in the instant writ petition pertains to the extension of the period for which the petitioner was prevented from operating the sand sairat because of the obstacles having created which was beyond his conceivable control. We do not find any specific provision contained in the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 which bestowed power upon the authorities to extend the time for the period in which the lessee could not operate mining activities but Rule-64 of the said Rules confers a power upon the authorities to relax any of such rules or to take any decision. The State or its instrumentality cannot sit idle and invite repeated representations to be made nor supposed to keep those representations in suspended animation but should immediately respond as and when such approach is made.
7. We are conscious of the proposition of law that the Court cannot direct the authorities to act de hors the provision of the statute nor can direct the authorities to do certain act, which is not provided under the statute. It would not be proper for the Court to issue a writ of mandamus extending the period of lease as it is purely contractual in nature and the Court should stay away from rewriting the contract for the parties.
8. Since the power is vested with the State Government under Rule-64 of the said Rules, we direct the State to take a decision on the basis of those representations, taking into account the lost period, which was beyond the conceivable control of the petitioner, within six (06) weeks from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Aug-2026 11:55:08 Signature Not Verified