WP(C)/810/2026 of PJ MINERALS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., BBSR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 May 2026

ORDER

19.05.2026

01.

1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer(s):- “In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application and after hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the letter/order dated 26.08.2025 as under Annexure-6;

And be further pleased to direct the Opp.Parties to allow the petitioner to do quarrying activities at Dankari (BSQ)-17 in terms of the lease deed executed between the parties.

And be further pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper”

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having participated in the auction, being declared highest bidder for Dankari Black

Stone Quarry No.17 vide Sairat Case No.07/2022-23 applied for mining plan under Rule 28 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”) and also Environmental Clearance before the competent authorities. After statutory clearances being granted, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, Jajpur on 14th July, 2023 for a period of five years in terms of Rule 43 of the said Rules.

2.1. After such execution of the lease deed and payments of statutory dues being made in respect of sairat source, all on a sudden the petitioner received letter bearing No.4890/MM, dated 30th July, 2025 from the Mining Officer, Jajpur to appear before him for personal hearing in connection with premature closure of Dankari Black Stone Quarry.

2.2. It is submitted by Sri Millan Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner appeared and expressed before the Mining Officer that he has invested and employed staff for the purpose of quarry. He submitted that abrupt closure of quarry shall prejudice not only the company but also the staff. Without considering the plight, the Mining Officer terminated the mining lease without issuing any show- cause. He vehemently urged before this Court that the Office order dated 26th August, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer reflects error of fact, which requires indulgence of this Court. He submitted that Office Order contains the following erroneous factual observation:-

“And whereas, a personal hearing was conducted on 12.08.2025, during which you appeared and submitted that you have no objection to the pre-mature closure of Dankari BSQ No.17, considering the overriding public interest involved in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project”.

2.3. It is urged that the petitioner has never conceded for the premature closure of Dankari Black Stone Quarry. It is submitted that several approaches are made to the authority concerned, but in vain.

3. Sri Sanjib Kumar Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the closure of quarry being directed by the competent authority for a project having public interest and, accordingly, the lease having been terminated, the writ petition is not entertainable. However, it is submitted that the Government is competent to relax any provisions of the OMMC Rules invoking Rule 64 thereof.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

5. This Court is taken to Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession 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.”

5.1. With the aforesaid background and in consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties, it is deemed apposite to reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government-competent authority with comprehensive representation within a period of fifteen days from date. On such eventuality, the competent authority shall consider such representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with comprehensive representation without being influenced by any of the observations made in the Office order dated 26th August, 2025 and take a decision invoking provisions of Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules. It is expected that a reasoned order shall be passed within the period stipulated as above and communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

5.2. 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 material placed on record before him by the petitioner.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stand disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-May-2026 13:07:12 Signature Not Verified