WP(C)/14495/2026 of SITARAM SAHU Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 13 May 2026

ORDER

13.05.2026

01.

1. The instant writ petition is filed assailing the letter dated 31st March, 2026 communicating an order that the application for prospecting mining lease filed way back in the year 2010 is hereby rejected in view of the coming in force of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the Rules 2016”).

2. According to the petitioner, the said application was made way back in the year 2010 when the OMMC Rules, 2016 did not see the light of the day and, therefore, the recourse to a provision of the Rules 2016 is impermissible and, therefore, the decision needs interference.

3. The petitioner relied upon the provisions of Rules, 2016, more particularly Rule 15(7) thereof, which postulates that where the prospecting license has already been granted before the commencement of the said rules in respect of a land containing the specified minor mineral, the holder of the prospecting license shall have a right for obtaining a mining lease in respect of that minor mineral in that land, if the Government is satisfied to the incidences and/or the circumstances mentioned therein. The said provision is hereby reproduced:- “(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, (a) where before the commencement of these rules a prospective license has been granted in respect of any land for any specified minor mineral, the holder of the prospective license shall have a right for obtaining a mining lease in respect of that minor mineral in that land, if the Government is satisfied that the licensee,-

(i) has undertaken prospecting operations to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with such parameters as was prescribed by the Government;

(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the prospecting license;

(iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of the rules which were in force before commencement of these rules; and

(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of mining lease within a period of three months after expiry of the prospecting license; (b) where order for grant of mining lease has been issued by the Government for grant of mining lease, before the commencement of these rules, the mining lease may be granted subject to the condition that the applicant has fulfilled all conditions for the grant in terms of the said grant order within the period specified therein, or such further period as may be allowed for the reasons to be recorded in writing.”

4. It appears that the said sub-rule (7) of Rule 15 contains a non obstante clause, which is always regarded to have an effect of supersession in relation to the other provisions of the Act or rules in which the same is used. The conditions and/or incidences enshrined in the said sub-rule are only applicable in the event the enabling provision of the said rules containing a non obstante clause is imminently and evidently in excess. The petitioner further relies upon Rule 67 of the said Rules, being the special provision containing a non obstante clause, where the prospecting license or the mining lease having granted earlier entitles the applicants to have a deed of license duly executed for a period or time as may be allowed by the competent authority. The aforesaid provision is cited before this Court for the proposition that once the application remained pending since 2010 and the petitioner was earlier granted a prospecting license in the year 2008, the aforesaid provision creates an obligation on the part of the authorities to grant the prospecting license without taking recourse to the other conditions and/or incidences contained in the said Rules, 2016.

5. It is no doubt true that the selective way of awarding the mining lease was done away with by introduction of an auction regime and the Government took a conscious decision and legislated the specific statute providing for granting of any license of the mining through a transparent and fair manner by conducting an auction. It is no doubt true that the application was made before the auction regime was put in place and the authority rejected the said application taking shelter under Rule 4(13) of the said Rules.

6. On the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the applicability is only restricted to a situation where the prospective license has been granted in respect of any land. The expression has been granted is to be understood as the license being operative on the date of coming in force of the said Rules and not such license which expires prior to the coming in force of the said rules.

7. The provisions contained under Rule 4(13)(a), 15(7) and Rule 67 are applicable only in a case where the prospecting license has been granted and in the meantime, the new Rules have come into play and not in relation to a case where the authorities have not granted any prospecting license and an application for such grant remained pending as on the date of coming in force on the said rules. There has been a paradigm shift from the selective regime to an auction regime and the provisions contained in the Rules of 2016 saves those the prospecting license which were operative, giving a specific life and, thereafter to grant such prospecting license taking shelter under the auction regime.

8. We are not unmindful of the fact that the authorities have committed a considerable delay in disposal of the said application and it is improbable and unacceptable that the disposal of the application consumed 16 years.

9. Be that as it may, since none of the provisions have any application in the facts emanating from the record, we do not think that the decision rejecting an application warrants any interference.

10. The writ petition is dismissed. No cost.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Aswini Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT (SECY I/C) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2026 20:23:30 Signature Not Verified