WP(C)/12122/2025 of DILLIP KUMAR JENA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 21 July 2026

ORDER

21.07.2026

02.

1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer(s):- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ / writs directing the appropriate Opposite Party- authority to extend the prevailing lease period 2022-2027 for an additional two years in lieu of the loss of two year 2022-2024 for no fault attributable to the petitioner but for the delay and laches of the authorities with respect to lease granted in favour of the petitioner concerning the Kushabhadra River Sand source; And be further pleased to direct the appropriate Opp. Parties - Authorities to adjust the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,439/- (approximately) towards royalty and allied charges for the period 2024 to 2025 with the deposit of Rs.5,85,130 made for the initial year of lease towards royalty and allied charges, as no operation has been conducted in the initial year of lease for the delay and laches of the authorities; And be further pleased to pass any such other order/direction in favour of the petitioner as would deem fit and proper, under the facts and in the circumstances of the present case;”

2. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is an admitted fact on record that the lease in respect of Kushabhadra River Sand Quarry, Bhingarpur was granted in favour of the Petitioner by execution of the lease agreement dated 29.07.2022 for a period of five years, i.e., from 2022 to 2027. It further appears from the materials on record that during the currency of the lease period, the Petitioner has approached the competent authority seeking extension of the lease period on the plea that he was deprived of operating the quarry for a substantial period due to circumstances beyond his control and the said grievance is yet to be considered by the authority concerned.

3. Perusal of judgment dated 17.12.2025 in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025 vide judgment dated 17.12.2025, it is revealed that this Court has made the following observations:- “7.5. … It was all along the stand of the State in the said report that the prayer for extension and/or renewal of a period in which the order of the NGT was operative cannot be granted in absence of any statutory Rules or the policy having taken in this regard and in pursuit of determining the same, the apex Court [Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 93], in unequivocal terms held that if such a deprivation is shown, which cannot be attributed to the conduct of a mining leaseholder, the law permits the refund of the security deposit and the advanced royalty deposited by him in the following:

‘43. We, thus, find that the appropriate course of action to be adopted in this case cannot be to extend the lease for the obstructed period but to direct that the security deposit, if not already refunded, should be refunded and the amount deposited by the appellants/leaseholders as advance royalties to the respondent State be also paid back to them along with something more.’

7.6. A distinction can be drawn between an involuntary act and a voluntary act. In the event, the lessee or the lessor has committed a fault or committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease or the statutory provisions, the equity does not come to play. The position would have been different when neither of the contracting parties is at fault, but the deprivation is by virtue of an interdict created by an order of the NGT, such involuntary act cannot be equated with the voluntary act nor the principles governing such situation should be blurred.

8. As indicated hereinabove, we have noticed that in some of the cases, the Government have taken a decision on the representation of the mining leaseholder to extend the period and, therefore, we direct the authorities to consider the said prayer independently without being swayed by the observations made hereinabove. In the event, the authorities declined to extend the period or renew the lease, the security deposit and the advance royalty paid by the petitioner shall be refunded within two weeks from the said decision with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the deposit till the payment thereof.”

4. This Court in Suraj Agrawal vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026 observed as follows:- “4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this Court does not feels it apt to issue writ of mandamus to extend the tenure of lease deed as prayed for by the petitioner.

4.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 which reads as follows:

“64.Power of the Government to relax the rules.— The Government may, in the interest of mineral development, relax any of the provisions of these rules in deserving cases in such manner as they deem proper.”

4.6. In view of the above rule conferring power on the Government to consider deserving case for relaxing the provisions of the OMMC Rules, it may be apposite for the petitioner to approach the Government for doing the needful to enable him to avail benefit of extension as prayed for in the writ petition. This Court, therefore, disposes of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, within a period of two weeks from date, as undertaken by the counsel for the petitioner. In the event such representation/grievance petition is submitted to the appropriate authority by the petitioner within the said period, the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioner pragmatically within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of such representation and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner forthwith.

4.7. As abundant caution it is clarified that nothing stated above on facts be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the matter. The appropriate authority is free to take independent decision on the merit of the matter on the basis of the material placed on record before him by the petitioner.”

5. It emanates from the materials placed on record that the Petitioner was granted lease in respect of Kushabhadra River Sand Quarry, Bhingarpur pursuant to execution of lease agreement dated 29.07.2022 for a period of five years. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the lease was granted for the aforesaid period, he could not effectively operate the source for a substantial period on account of delays in demarcation of the source area, modification of the mining plan and allied statutory compliances, which according to him were beyond his control.

6. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of the decisions of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra) and Suraj Agrawal (supra), wherein this Court, while declining to issue a writ of mandamus for extension of the lease period, observed that the competent authority is empowered to consider such grievance in an appropriate case in exercise of power under Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix and the law laid down in the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court does not consider it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus directing extension of the lease period as prayed for by the Petitioner. However, Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 empowers the Government, in deserving cases and in the interest of mineral development, to relax the provisions of the said Rules. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to such relaxation and consequential extension of the lease period is a matter which falls for consideration by the competent authority on the basis of the materials available on record.

8. Since it is stated that the Petitioner has already approached the competent authority during the currency of the lease period seeking extension of the lease and redressal of his grievance, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the authority concerned to consider the said grievance/representation in accordance with law, keeping in view Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 as well as the observations made in the decisions referred to hereinabove, and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

9. So far as the prayer relating to adjustment/refund of the amount deposited towards royalty and allied charges is concerned, the same shall also be considered by the competent authority while taking a decision on the Petitioner’s grievance, in accordance with law.

10. As an abundant caution, it is clarified that nothing stated above on facts be construed as an expression of any opinion of this Court on the merit of the matter. The appropriate authority is free to take independent decision on the merit of the matter on the basis of the materials placed on record before him by the petitioner.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A(s)., if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Bijay/Sarbani Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:23:46 Signature Not Verified