WP(C)/15557/2026 of PRAVATA KUMAR RAY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 23 June 2026

ORDER

23.06.2026

01.

1. The writ petition is filed for grant of following relief(s): “The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships shall graciously be pleased to admit this Writ petition, issue Rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause:

(a) As to why the State should not be directed to compensate the petitioner either by refunding the excess royalty collected amounting to Rs.30,08,276/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. Or allow the petitioner to lift the balance quantity of 4355 cubic metre after expiry of the present lease period, shall not be quashed; and (b) And to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper;

And on their failure to show cause or showing insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court be pleased to make the said Rule absolute by way of issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Orders in the facts and circumstances of the present case: And for this act of your Lordships’ kindness, the petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”

2. The petitioner was settled with Brahmani sand quarry, Upperkaipada for a period of five years from April, 2022 to March, 2027 by a lease deed executed in Form-N in terms of Rule 27(13) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (“OMMC Rules”, for short) on 25th April, 2022. The petitioner is entitled to lift 30,000 cubic metres of sand during five years period and in consideration thereof, a sum of Rs.41,44,592/- has been determined to be paid during each of the financial years towards royalty, dead rent, service rent, district mineral fund and fee for environment management.

2.1. As the Y-Forms (transit pass) were supplied to the petitioner got exhausted, he applied for further supply of such forms on many occasions during the year 2023. However, due to transfer of jurisdiction on account of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022, the request made was not attended to by the opposite parties. As a result of such non-supply of Y-Forms, the petitioner could not operate the sand sairat and suffered huge loss.

2.2. Under aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner perceiving that the tenure of sand sairat would expire on 24th April, 2027, he approached this Court in the instant writ application for a direction to the opposite parties to compensate him by refunding excess royalty collected amounting to Rs.30,08,276/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or in the alternative allow the petitioner to lift/remove the balance quantity of 4355 cubic metre after expiry of the said lease period.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that negligence and laches on the part of the opposite parties led the petitioner to suffer huge loss as he could not operate the sand sairat.

3.1. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner was deprived of lifting the sand though it deposited statutory dues and approached the authorities on many occasions by way of filing representations requesting for supply of Y-Form to facilitate him to remove the sand from the sairat area. The opposite parties did not pay any heed to such request(s). Therefore, the petitioner under constraint filed this writ petition seeking for grant of relief as prayed for in the writ petition.

4. The facts adumbrated in the writ petition could not be disputed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties; nevertheless, it is submitted that this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to extend the period of lease. It is argued on behalf of opposite parties that extending the period beyond what is agreed upon by dint of lease deed vide

Annexure-1 would be to rewrite the convenants/recitals, which is not the domain within the purview of this Court.

4.1. To countenance such submission, the learned Additional Standing Counsel relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 1 SCC 93, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot compel the State to extend or renew the period of lease, in absence of any rule. It is, therefore, it is urged that the contention and the prayer made by the petitioner beseeching extension of the period of lease is misconceived and untenable.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the rival contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It remained undeniable that due to change in jurisdiction from the Revenue Department to the Steel and Mines Department by way of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 and non-supply of adequate numbers of Y-Form to facilitate transport/removal of sand from the sources, the petitioner was prevented from enjoying the property and carrying on his business despite deposit of statutory dues.

6.1. This Court in such circumstances, having given anxious consideration to various provisions of the OMMC Rules, 2016 failed to find out a specific provision relating to grant of extension or renewal of lease after the end of tenure of lease, i.e., 24th April, 2027. It is a trite law that the Court should not issue writ of mandamus to the authorities to do an act either forbidden by law or de hors the law. The authorities shall act within the precincts of law and transgression of such boundary is always viewed zealously by the Court. Even in case of a statutory lease, it is not only guided by the terms and conditions embodied therein but also the statutory provisions governing the field and the Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering in this regard.

6.2. Dharmendra Kumar Singh (supra) originated from the State of Uttar Pradesh, where the operation of several mining leases was kept at halt by the order of the National Green Tribunal. The Supreme Court of India noticed the distinguishing features. Some of the mining areas were falling within the purview of the Forest Act and some beyond the same. The applicability of Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927 was taken into consideration and the Supreme Court took note of the fact that they were prevented from operating the lease because of the order of the National Green Tribunal. The said Court in unequivocal terms held that if the mining policy or the applicable statute does not permit any extension or the renewal, it would not be proper on the part of the Court to issue a mandamus in the following: “37. We do find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the right to extension of lease either flows from a statutory provision or from the terms of the lease between the parties concerned. If there has been an obstructed period by reason of a judicial interdict, that itself will not give window to extend the lease by not following the statutory provisions, especially when the terms of the lease do not provide for any consequences thereof.”

6.3. In the said case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh (supra) in clear and unequivocal words, it was held that in absence of any statutory provision, the Court should not pass a direction upon the authorities to do an act contrary thereto and, therefore, this Court does not find that any direction as sought for in the form of writ of mandamus can be granted.

6.4. Equally, we have noticed in recent past that in some of the cases, the Government has taken a conscious decision based upon a policy to permit the quarry leaseholders to operate. Whether that is permissible or not is the wisdom of the administrative authority to ponder upon and no such direction can be passed by the Court in judicial fiat.

6.5. On the aforesaid facts and in the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties to extend the period of lease beyond 24th April, 2027, as made through the learned Senior Advocate, is hereby denied.

7. It is in the context of the prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to grant refund of excess royalty collected along with interest the learned Additional Standing Counsel vociferously submitted that such relief is not to be granted as the relief granted in Dharmendra Kumar Singh (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was mere direction to be construed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that while disposing of the writ petition, being Narayan Nayak

Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 10384 of 2021, on 5th March, 2024 a coordinate Bench of this Court categorically held that the quarry leaseholder is not entitled to refund of the security deposit and the advance royalty paid. This Court does not find merit in such contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel.

7.1. In Dharmendra Kumar Singh (supra), the State was formidably opposing the prayer of the mining leaseholders seeking for extension and relying on the separate provision of the Rules and the statute, including the policy adopted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, which dislodged the claim of the mining leaseholder to have the lease extended or renewed. In pursuit of the same, though there appears to be a word ‘concession’ used in paragraph 41 thereof, the same has to be read in juxtaposition with the other contentions raised by the State in the said matter. 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 National Green Tribunal 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 Supreme Court 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 advance 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.”

7.2. 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 National Green Tribunal, such involuntary act cannot be equated with the voluntary act nor the principles governing such situation should be blurred.

7.3. The reliance to an unreported judgment of this Court in Narayan Nayak (supra) is one of the cases concerning the voluntary act. In the said case, there was a default or a breach committed by the mining leaseholder in not submitting the requisite certificate and in such eventuality, the claim for refund was denied. We have no hesitation nor a dissent to the proposition laid down therein for the simple reason that if the quarry could not be operated because of the fault of the lessee in complying with the terms and conditions of the lease or the statutory provision, he does not deserve any equitable relief(s) in the form of a refund. However, the position is different when he cannot be blamed for a breach of any of the terms and conditions or the statutory provision and, therefore, the decision rendered in Narayan Nayak (supra) has no manner of applicability in the instant case.

7.4. Having thus diligently considered the rival contentions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is faced with an order dated 6th January, 2026 passed in the case of Suraj Agrawal Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WP(C) No.32657 of 2025, wherein this Court made the following observation: “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.”

7.5. It may be pertinent to take note of the fact that on account of circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner could not operate the sairat for certain period. As it seems from the record that due to non-supply of Y-Form at the appropriate time by the opposite parties, even though requests were made, the petitioner could not remove the sand from the source. Such default indubitably cannot be attributed to the petitioner.

8. This Court is conscious of the fact that it cannot issue writ of mandamus to the opposite parties by extending the period of lease; nonetheless, cognizance of Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 can be taken in this regard.

8.1. For no fault of the petitioner, who was deprived of carrying on business smoothly for certain period(s) for want of Y-Forms being supplied by the authorities concerned, this Court noticed that in some of the cases, the Government have taken a decision on the representation of the mining leaseholder to extend the period invoking provisions of Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules.

9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of factual scenario vis-à-vis the legal perspective as discussed supra, this Court directs the opposite parties/competent authority to consider the prayer to allow the petitioner to lift/remove the balance quantity, to be determined by such authority, after expiry of the lease period, i.e., 24th April, 2027. Needless to indicate here that the prayer of the petitioner so made for extension may be considered independently without being swayed by the observations made hereinabove.

9.1. It deserves to be clarified that in the event the authorities would decline to extend or renew the period of lease beyond 24th April, 2027, the security deposit and the advance royalty paid by the petitioner be refunded to him within two weeks of refusal to extend/renew lease period with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment thereof by determining proportionately during which the petitioner could not operate the sairat.

10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2026 19:18:16 Signature Not Verified