[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Suresh Jaiswal vs Tahasildar on 3 December, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21023 of 2024
Suresh Jaiswal .... Petitioner
Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate
along with M/s. Abhisek Agrawal and
Abhijeet Agrawal, Advocates
Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae)
-versus-
Tahasildar, Lathikata and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Das, ASC
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal,
Advocate for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 03.12.2025
09. 1. The petitioner suffered a stalemate situation when the
restriction in the vehicular movement containing the sand extracted
by the petitioner was not only imposed during the period from
7 A.M. to 9 P.M. in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of
Prasanta Kumar Das Vs. State of Odisha and others, (2024) Vol-I
OLR 742, but also the Gram Panchayat between 4 P.M. to 4 A.M.
2. According to the petitioner, he was left with three hours for a
vehicular movement between 4 A.M. to 7 A.M., which is
insufficient to run the sand quarry and despite the approach having
made to the authorities flagging such issue, no response could be
received.
3. The attention of the Court is drawn by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner to the judgment rendered by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Prasanta Kumar Das (supra),
where the aspect of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India was considered and such restriction was
imposed to ensure the safety, security and the life of the inmates of
the villages. If the Gram Panchayat has also taken a decision to
restrict the movement of the vehicles carrying the sand between 4
P.M. to 4 A.M., there does not appear any reasonable time left to
the writ petitioner to transport the sand extracted from the sand
quarry. However, the good sense has prevailed over the Gram
Panchayat as the counsel representing them fairly submits that a
resolution/decision has been taken by the Gram Panchayat not to
impose any restriction on the vehicular movement during the said
time, which in our opinion takes care of one of the grievances
raised in the instant writ petition.
4. However, the other issue remained undecided as the period of
mining lease expired during the pendency of the instant writ
petition. The petitioner has approached the competent authority
flagging an issue of the obstacles and/or hurdles being created
relating to the vehicular movement affecting the transportation of
the sand and, therefore, the period in which the petitioner was
unable to run the sand quarry, may be extended.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
opposite parties submits that the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2016 does not contain any provision relating to an extension
and places reliance upon the judgments of the apex Court in support
thereof.
6. It would simply burden the judgment, if all the judgments cited
by the opposite parties-State, is dealt with in seriatim as we do not
find any incongruity and/or dissent in the ratio laid down therein. It
is a cardinal principle of law that the extension of the lease must
emanate from the statutory provisions or from the contract entered
into between the parties. If the contract permits an extension of the
period provided in the lease either by virtue of mutual agreement or
on exercise of an option provided to either of the parties, there is no
fetter on the part of a contracting party to extend the period of the
contract.
7. It is within the domain of the State-opposite parties to consider
whether the period of mining lease can be extended taking into
account the competing circumstances as narrated in the
representation made by the petitioner. Even though the restrictions
of the vehicular movement between 4 P.M. to 4 A.M. is lifted as the
Gram Panchayat has resolved by not insisting such restriction, we,
therefore, direct the competent authority to take into consideration
the representations, which are pending before it seeking extension
of the period of lease, within six weeks from the date of
communication of the order. The authority may provide an
opportunity of personal hearing if the circumstances so warrant
before taking a final decision on such representations. The decision
shall be immediately communicated to the petitioner by the
competent authority preferably within one week from the date
thereof.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending
Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Dec-2025 20:06:37
