[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Party(S) on 29 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Dec-2025 17:58:11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 29897 of 2025
(In the matter of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Jindal Steel Limited, New Delhi .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr.Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Adv.
(for intervenor)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the legality of the
impugned order dated 19.10.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No.3,
the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar, whereby the working
permission earlier granted in favour of the Petitioner in respect of
51.99 hectares of diverted forest land forming an integral part of the
Roida-I Iron and Manganese Mine has been revoked. The Petitioner
contends that the said revocation is arbitrary, unsustainable in law,
and violative of the mandate governing forest-diverted mining
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
operations. Consequently, the Petitioner prays for issuance of an
appropriate writ to quash the aforesaid order and to pass appropriate
order to the Opposite Parties to restore the working permission and to
permit the Petitioner to continue with mining operations, including
transportation and dispatch of minerals, over the said 51.99 hectares
of the subject mine.
II. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) M/s Khatau Narbheram and Co. was originally granted a
Mining lease for Roida - I block over 104.68 ha of Siddhamatha
Reserve Forest, situated in village Roida, Barbil Tahasil, District
Keonjhar, Odisha on 21.05.1963 for a period of 30 years with
effect from 23.1.1953 to 22.1.1983. Thereafter, the renewal of
mining lease was granted for 20 years from 23.1.1983 to
22.1.2003. Further, on 31.10.1996, the mining lease was
transferred to Mideast Integrated Steels Limited ('MISL') for a
period up to 22.1.2003. Subsequently, the said Mining Lease was
extended up to 31.3.2020 through a supplementary mining lease
deed executed on 13.7.2015.
(ii) On 4.1.2006, Ministry of Environment Forest Clearance and
Climate Change, New Delhi ('MoEF') granted in principle
approval of Forest clearance over 51.990 ha including 23.393 ha
of pre -1980 broken up forest area and 28.597 ha of fresh forest
land and excluding safety zone of 8.581 ha.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) Thereafter, on 19.2.2008, MoEF granted final approval of Forest
clearance over the abovementioned 51.99 ha of forest land inside
the Siddhamatha Reserve Forest area. On 23.5.2011, DFO,
Keonjhar stopped MISL from transporting mineral through
Siddhamatha Reserve Forest, from the western boundary of the
Mining Lease connecting to NH520 (earlier NH 215) which was
outside the mining lease area, for want of Forest Clearance.
(iv) MISL filed W.P.(C) No.23722 of 2011 before this Court
challenging the letter dated 23.5.2011 of the DFO, Keonjhar
wherein this Court on 29.9.2011 passed an interim order
permitting the MISL to seek permission from DFO, Keonjhar
(Opposite Party No.2) to transport raw materials through
Siddhamatha Reserve Forest which leads to NH 215 without
affecting diversion of forest area, which was allowed by DFO,
Keonjhar on monthly basis. This Court dismissed
W.P.(C)No.23722 of 2011 filed by MISL on 5.2.2019, for want of
prosecution, without deciding the matter on merits.
(v) Meanwhile, on 13.9.2017 the MoEF granted in principle
approval of forest clearance for 44.109 ha out of 104.68 forest
area. It may be noted that MoEF had already granted forest
clearance for 51.99 ha of forestland on 19.02.2008 and for 8.581
ha of forest land 1.4.2015 on payment of NPV.
(vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.1.2020, while disposing of
MISL's application vide I.A. NO. 30915 of2019 (in W.P.C.
No.114/2014), permitted the MISL to sell the previously mined
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
ore lying at the subject mine site, proceeds of which were to be
utilised towards compensation to be paid by MISL under
Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, pursuant to the judgement dated
2.8.2017.
(vii) Even after the disposal of W.P.(C) No.23722 of 2011 filed by the
MISL and pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated
15.01.2020 passed in I.A. No.30915 of 2019 arising out of W.P.(C)
No.114 of 2014 permitting the MISL to transport balance stock of
minerals lying in the subject mine, the DFO, Kenosha on
18.12.2020 permitted such restricted transportation of stock iron
ore from the subject mine to NH-215 through Siddhamatha
Reserve Forest under the following conditions:
(a) The existing road should not be widened during
transportation of minerals.
(b) The existing flora & fauna should not be damaged
during transportation of minerals in the said road.
(c) The vehicles shall not be parked in the said road passing
through the Reserved Forest.
(d)The road should be properly demarcated in the field in
consultation with local forest officer before
commencement of transportation, and such
authenticated map signed by all should be submitted
before commencement of transportation.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(e) Proper security guard should be deployed so as to check
violation of point 1,2,3 listed above.
(viii) Thereafter, on 7.3.2025, State of Odisha issued a Notice Inviting
Tender for auction of eight mineral blocks for grant of mining
leases for (a) four iron ore and manganese blocks with expired
mining leases i.e, Roida-I mine, Koira mine, Jalahuri mine and
Putulipani mine and four green field blocks i.e. Jhumka-
Pathiriposhi West mine, Orahuri mine, Roida-D mine, and
Bhanjikusum mine.
(ix) On 21.3.2025, the Petitioner submitted Pre-bid queries regarding
approach road to Roida -I block from National Highway as
follows:
"Approach Road to Roida -I block from
NationalHighway is outside the block area and
appears tobe falling in Forest area. No document
indicating forest clearance for approach road in Paid
Document provided. Will the new lessee be allowedto
use this approach road post auction for dispatchin
order to comply with the MDPA requirement.
Clarity on the same is essential in order to
dispatchore and meet the MDPA requirements. "
(x) Accordingly, on 2.4.2025, Pre-bid meeting was held which was
chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, Steel &Mines
Department, Government of Odisha wherein the Petitioner once
again raised the issue regarding grant of Forest Clearance for the
connecting road between Roida I block and NH 215.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xi) However, the State Government on 7.4.2025 responded that
transportation will be in accordance with the provisions of the
applicable law, the bidder is required to adhere to all relevant
legal requirements. Furthermore, it was advised that all the
bidders were to conduct its own due diligence qua the mines.
(xii) In view thereof, the Petitioner on 17.4.2025 submitted a letter to
the Director of Mines & Geology, Odisha with copy to
Additional Chief Secretary, Steel & Mines Department, Odisha
requesting clarification on the status of forest clearance for the
only existing access road inside Siddhamatha Reserve Forest
from NH 520 (erstwhile NH 215) to Roida-I mine under Barbil
Tahsil, Keonjhar District. Further, in the said letter the Petitioner
specifically requested that in the event no forest clearance
existed, then as an interim measure, i) transportation of minerals
may be allowed till such time Forest Clearance for the access
road was approved, ii) the MDPA terms may be modified to the
extent that the dispatch obligations would commence from the
date of grant of Forest Clearance over the access road, and iii)
the alternative, to coordinate with the adjacent Roida -11 block
to provide temporary Right of Way for mineral evacuation till
such time Forest Clearance for the access road is granted by
MoEF. It appears that there has been no response to the said
letter till date.
(xiii) Pursuant to the Petitioner being declared as a preferred bidder,
on 18.6.2025, the Petitioner deposited the 1st instalment of INR
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
51,14,34,054/- to the State Government. It is important to note
that on 3.7.2025, the Petitioner deposited INR 51,14,34,054/-
towards 2nd instalment. Further, in terms of Rule 12 of Mineral
(Auction) Rule, 2015, the Petitioner also furnished performance
security of INR 255,71,70,267.
(xiv) In view thereof, the Department of Steel & Mines, Odisha issued
Letter of Intent and Vesting Order on 2.7.2025 and the Petitioner
was declared as a successful bidder of the subject mine on
14.7.2025. Consequently, on 15.7.2025, the Petitioner and the
Collector, Keonjhar executed a Mine Development and
Production Agreement ('MDPA'). Further, it is important to
mention that through an email dated 15.7.2025, the Petitioner
requested the State Government to issue grant order for mining
lease for the subject mine at the earliest so as to enable the
Petitioner to proceed with the execution of mining lease within
the stipulated time period, in accordance with the applicable
rules. The Petitioner also deposited the 3rd instalment of INR
l53,43,02,159/-.
(xv) Thereafter, on 16.7.2025, the Department of Steel & Mines,
Odisha issued grant order for mining lease in favour of the
Petitioner. Further, based on the demand raised by the Sub-
registrar, Keonjhar, the Petitioner paid stamp duty of INR
142,05,60,784/- and registration charges of INR 56,82,24,314/-.
(xvi) Subsequently, a Mining lease deed of the subject mine was
executed in favour the Petitioner on 16.7.2025. On 19.7.2025, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Petitioner informed the DFO, Keonjhar that the Petitioner will
commence mining operation over an area of 51.99 Ha on
25.7.2025. Further, on 21.7.2025, the Petitioner requested grant of
working permission in the diverted area from DFO, Keonjhar.
(xvii) It may be noted that on 22.7.2025, the Petitioner changed its
name from Jindal Steel and Power Limited to Jindal Steel
Limited.
(xviii) On 30.7.2025, DFO Keonjhar granted working permission
over an area of 51.99 Ha of already diverted forest area. Further,
on 7.8.2025 Director of Mines, Bhubaneswar also granted
approval to the weigh bridge of the Petitioner located within the
subject mine for functioning of e-permit and e-pass system.
Thereafter, the State Government on 8.8.2025 granted transit
permit for despatch of excavated materials from the subject
mine to the Petitioner's plant.
(xix) In the meanwhile, as directed by the DFO vide the permission
letter dated 30.7.2025, the Petitioner submitted forest diversion
proposal over an area of 0.928 Ha adjoining to the Western
Boundary Line of the M.L. of the subject mine for road
connectivity in Siddhamath Reserve Forest, on the online portal
on 5.8.2025. The same was intimated to DFO, Keonjhar on the
self same date as well. It may be noted that on 11.8.2025, DFO,
Keonjhar issued a letter raising queries regarding the aforesaid
proposal dated 5.8.2025. The Petitioner on 5.9.2025 informed the
DFO, Keonjhar that all compliances have been done by the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Petitioner with respect to forest diversion and to accept the
proposal for further necessary processing at the earliest.
(xx) However, on 25.9.2025, the Forest Range Officer, Barbil Range
issued show cause notice to Petitioner for use of alleged illegal
road inside Siddhamatha Reserved Forest. Further, the notice
directed the Petitioner to submit its response within 3 days from
the date of receipt. The Petitioner requested an extension of time
to submit its response to the show cause notice on 04.10.2025.
(xxi) On 4.10.2025, Site Inspection was conducted by the office of
DFO, pursuance to the submission of compliances and
clarifications to the queries of DFO in relation to the Forest
Diversion proposal submitted by the Petitioner for the existing
forest road connecting the subject mine to the national highway.
(xxii) On 17.10.2025 the Petitioner responded to the show cause notice
dated 25.9.2025, inter alia, stating that:
(a) The right to use the existing forest road through
Siddhamatha Reserved Forest was enjoyed by the previous
lessee.
(b) This Court had permitted the previous lessee to use the said
road and even after the disposal of WP(C) No. 23722 of 2011,
DFO Keonjhar by its letter dated 18.12.2020 had allowed the
previous lessee to transport the already mined iron ore
through the same forest road recognizing the absence of any
alternate access /road.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(c) OMC is presently using the same route for dispatch of iron
ore mined by the previous lessee which is lying at the subject
mine site.
(d)Petitioner being the new lessee may be permitted to use the
existing road until diversion proposal submitted by
Petitioner is approved by MoEF.
(e) Such permission is essential to enable the Petitioner to meet
its binding contractual obligations under the MDPA and
statutory obligations under the MCR 2016 which mandate
quarterly production and dispatch of iron ore from the date
of execution of mining lease.
(f) Absence of any way of transportation of iron ore from the
subject mine would result in substantial losses of INR 393
crores (approx.) per quarter to the state exchequer.
(xxiii)However, it is alleged herein that the Opposite Party No.2
instead of processing the diversion proposal for .928 ha land in
due time, on 19.10.2025 in an arbitrary, premediated and mala
fide manner and without considering, and or addressing the
detailed response dated 17.10.2025 submitted by the Petitioner,
issued the impugned letter thereby revoking its working
permission granted on 30.7.2025 over 51.99 Ha of forest land
within the mining lease in Siddhamatha Reserved Forest, thus
forcing the Petitioner to abruptly stop mining operations, which
is outside the legal powers of the Opposite Party No.2. The
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
reason cited was the unauthorized use of Reserved Forest land
within Siddhamath RF for transportation of minerals.
(xxiv)In view of the impugned order dated 19.10.2025, the Petitioner
issued a notice of event of Force Majeure to the Opposite Party
No.5 as the Petitioner has been prohibited from undertaking
mining and dispatch operations at the subject mine.
(xxv) The Petitioner being thus aggrieved has approached this Court
by way of this Writ Petition.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Mr. Jain, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) MISL had been using the approach road for 0.928 ha for
transportation of minerals from the subject mine to NH-215
(now NH-520). MISL had approached this Court seeking
permission to transport raw material on the approach road
leading to NH-215 (now NH-520). This Court on 29.9.2011 in
W.P.(C) No.23722 of 2011 passed an interim order permitting
the MISL to seek permission from the DFO for transportation of
raw materials through the approach road without affecting
diversion of forest area and directed the DFO to pass necessary
orders in that regard Transportation of minerals by MISL from
Roida - I mine through the approach road was allowed by the
DFO on a monthly basis. This Court's order dated 29.9.2011 was
extended till 5.2.2019. In fact, in Para 3 of the working
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
permission dated 30.7.2025 the DFO recognised the existence of
the approach road connecting the mine to the national highway.
Therefore, the DFO acknowledges that this Court has previously
allowed temporary usage of the road for transportation of ores
by the MISL pending diversion proposal. Further, by order
dated 15.1.2020, the Supreme Court, while disposing of MISL's
I.A. No.30915 of 2019 arising out of W.P(C) No.114 of 2014,
permitted the MISL to sell the previously mined ore lying at the
subject mine site. The order records CEC's recommendation
regarding the modalities of sale to be conducted by OMC under
the supervision of a committee, including representatives of the
DFO. Accordingly, the approach road continued to be used by
OMC under the knowledge and supervision of the DFO. In
furtherance of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, the
DFO, by its letter dated 18.12.2020 permitted the MISL to
transport stocked iron ore from the subject mine to NH-215
(now NH-520) through the approach road. In view of the above,
the DFO is now estopped from terming the approach road as
'illegal', having itself permitted and supervised its usage on
multiple occasions under judicial and administrative directions.
(ii) It is also contended that the impugned letter dated 19.10.2025,
does not provide any reasons for non-consideration of Jindal
Steel's reply and the DFO summarily rejected the reply by
merely terming it as 'unsatisfactory'. The failure of the DFO to
assign reasons in the impugned letter, thereby passing a non-
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
speaking order, is contrary to the settled principles of natural
justice and is non-est in law. In this regard, reliance is being
placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court i.e. Oryx
Fisheries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India1, CCT v. Shukla & Bros.2,
and Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik
Samity3.
(iii) Further, the show cause notice dated 25.9.2025 issued by FRO is
wholly misconceived and without jurisdiction. Section 27 of
Orrisa Forest Act, 1972 inter alia penalizes specific acts such as i)
clearing of breaking up of forest land for cultivation or any
purpose other than permitted use, ii) setting fire to a reserved
forest, iii) felling or removing of trees or timber, iv) quarrying or
removing any forest produce from a reserved forest without
authority, and v) trespass, none of which have been established
in the facts of the present case. In the show cause notice dated
25.9.2025 none of these ingredients are alleged much less
established in the present case. Jindal Steel has not undertaken
any felling and/or removal of forest produces or damage to
trees.
(iv) The alleged road referred to in the notice is an existing road
which was in continuous use by the prior lessee MISL and OMC
spanning over a decade and causes no disturbance to the
standing vegetation of forest cover.
(2010) 13 SCC 427
(2010) 4 SCC 785
(2010) 3 SCC 732
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(v) The DFO through the impugned letter dated 19.10.2025 has
withdrawn the working permission over 51.99 Ha of the
diverted forest area within the subject mine without any valid
reason and without jurisdiction. This action directly overrides
the valid statutory approvals and clearances already granted by
MoEF for the mine. It is undisputed that Jindal Steel holds
Stage-II Forest Clearance dated 19.2.2008, which permits mining
operations over 51.99 Ha. By revoking the working permission,
the DFO has effectively sought to undermine this subsisting
clearance.
(vi) Therefore, the DFO had no authority to revoke the working
permission under Section 27 and has clearly acted beyond his
jurisdiction by exercising powers not conferred upon him by
law. Despite this, having received the response from Jindal Steel
on 11.10.2025, the DFO in undue haste and in a mala fide
manner abruptly revoked the working permission without
giving any reasons that too on Sunday i.e. 19.10.2025.
(vii) In any case, the Department of Steel and Mines has granted
transit permits for lawful transportation of the minerals from
the subject mine in favour of the Petitioner. The permits have
been issued without interruption demonstrating that all
statutory permits stood duly verified and satisfied by the
relevant authority.
(viii) The DFO in its letter dated 30.7.2025 directed Jindal Steel to
submit a forest diversion proposal for the approach road. In
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
compliance with the said direction, Jindal Steel submitted a
forest diversion proposal on 5.8.2025.
(ix) Once the condition specified in paragraph 7 of the working
permission dated 30.07.2025 was met i.e., submission of forest
diversion proposal, there existed no prohibition on the user
agency (i.e., Jindal Steel) to use the road for transportation of
minerals from the mine, more so as the permission records that
"the new lessee has to produce MDPA within first quarter/yearly
which necessitate immediate working permission for conservation of
minerals." This shows that the DFO recognised and
acknowledged the statutory and contractual mandate of Jindal
Steel to meet the minimum production and dispatch
requirement, for which a valid working permission is
mandatory.
(x) Further, contrary to the mandate of Rules 8-11 of the Van
(Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 which require that
proposals seeking prior approval of the Central Government for
areas below 5 Ha be processed within 30 working days at the
State level, with site inspection to be completed by the DFO
within 15 days, the DFO forwarded the said proposal to the
Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Odisha
(PCCF) only on 23.10.2025 i.e, after a delay 82 days.
(xi) Significantly, the proposal was forwarded to the PCCF, a day
after the DFO received service of the present Writ Petition on
22.10.2025, and following the hearing before this Court on
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
23.10.2025. The timing of this action reveals that forwarding of
the proposal was not a bona fide administrative step, but rather
an afterthought and an attempt to cover up prior inaction and
delay by the DFO.
(xii) In fact, the DFO's conduct demonstrates complete disregard of
the mandatory time-frame prescribed under Rules 8-11 of the
Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, and,
therefore, it is clear that the letter dated 23.10.2025 was issued
only to conceal such non-compliance.
(xiii) Subsequently, the DFO issued another letter dated 26.10.2025
demanding compensatory afforestation land from Jindal Steel
and incorrectly stating that the approach road forms part of the
mine and, therefore, cannot be considered as a 'linear project'.
(xiv) This is directly contradicted by the DFO's own earlier
communication dated 23.10.2025, wherein it is expressly
recorded that "Compensatory afforestation is not required" for the
proposal dated 5.8.2025.
(xv) Further, under Rule 2(m) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam
Samvardhan) Rules,2023, a 'linear project' includes "projects
involving linear diversion of forest land for the purposes such as roads,
pipelines, railways, transmission lines, slurry pipeline, conveyor belt
etc."
(xvi) Aptly, Clause 7.8 of the Forest Handbook, 2023 and Para ii of
MoEF Guidelines dated 17.01.2025 categorically provides that
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
approach roads not included in mining leases or mining plans
are to be treated as stands alone linear projects.
(xvii) In these circumstances, the issuance of the letter dated
26.10.2025 is in direct contradiction to both the DFO's own
findings recorded in the letter dated 23.10.2025 and Para ii of
MoEF guidelines dated 17.01.2025 read with Clause 7.8 of the
Forest Handbook. Therefore, the DFO's conduct clearly
demonstrates malice and manipulation, revealing an attempt to
manufacture legal justifications in support of the impugned
order dated 19.10.2025.
(xviii) Moreover, the impugned order has been passed by the DFO
despite being aware that this Court had previously allowed
temporary usage of the approach road by MISL till pending of
the diversion proposal.
(xix) ln any case, the DFO has the power to allow transportation of
minerals through the approach road even for a temporary
period under Regulation 1.7, Chapter 1 of the Consolidated
Guidelines and Clarification issued under Van (Sanrakshan
Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and Van (Sanrakshan
Evam Samvardhan) Rules 2023.
(xx) In view of the above, it was strenuously submitted that through
the impugned order i) the DFO has arbitrarily revoked the
working permission dated 30.07.2025, despite the fact that Jindal
Steel possesses valid statutory clearances for the subject mine
which is distinct and independent from that of the approach
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
road. and ii) the DFO has passed the impugned order
mechanically without any application of mind and without
consideration of facts already known to the DFO.
(xxi) The subject mine was auctioned as an 'expired lease' with valid
statutory approvals and clearances. Under law, the mining lease
shall be executed l5 days of issuance of the venting order, after
which the first quarter obligations of minimum production and
dispatch commence under the MDPA.
(xxii) By executing the Mining Lease Deed and MDPA, the State
created a legitimate expectation for Jindal Steel that it would be
allowed to fulfil its contractual obligations, without any
hindrance, having necessary access and transport permissions to
follow.
(xxiii) Therefore, it is illogical and administratively improper for the
State to auction and sanction the subject mine without providing
for utilisation and transportation of mineral ore, despite being
aware of strict statutory timelines and consequences of default.
(xxiv)Hence, the State's conduct, due to its own lapses, resulting in
adverse consequences for Jindal Steel, is contrary to the
principles of fairness, reasonableness, and legitimate
expectation.
(xxv) Jindal Steel has made substantial financial investments and has
won the subject mine at a premium of 117.50% and is the
successful bidder. Jindal Steel has invested approximately INR
710 cr. in the subject mine, towards upfront payments, stamp
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
duty and registration of the mining lease, and performance
securities.
(xxvi) Therefore, revocation of working permission by the impugned
letter will result in serious financial loss not only to Jindal Steel
but also to approximately 400 workers and their families, whose
livelihood depends on the continued operation of the subject
mine, and the State exchequer, as Jindal Steel contributes approx
INR 300 Cr. to the State every quarter.
(xxvii) Further, the alleged environmental concern raised by DFO is
wholly misconceived and does not arise in the present case.
There has been no fresh felling of trees, clearing of forest area,
blacktopping, or widening of any portion of the existing road to
cause environmental degradation, deforestation, or pollution of
any kind. The Petitioner is merely utilizing a pre-existing road
that has long been in use, solely to facilitate transportation of
mineral ore, pending grant of forest diversion approval.
(xxviii) Any restrain on such use by the State and its functionaries, is
not only arbitrary but also frustrates mineral development,
disrupts employment of hundreds dependent on the project,
further depriving the State of substantial revenue. Therefore, the
State and DFO's conduct in stopping of production and dispatch
operations from the subject mine, are directly contrary to public
interest, which the State itself is bound to advance.
(xxix) In such view of the matter, he contended that the prayer of the
Petitioner may be allowed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties made the
following submissions:
(i) After expiry of lease of the ex-lessee, M/s. MISL, the ROIDA-1
iron ore and manganese mines in Keonjhar district inside the
Sidhamath Reserve Forest were put to auction by the State
Government vide NIT dated 07.03.2025.
(ii) The ex-lessee, M/s. MISL was in continuous violation of
statutory requirements of the working order dated 30.07.2025. In
fact, the ex-lessee had constructed an illegal approach road
constituting approximately 0.928 Hectares (Ha) of forest land
inside the reserve forest without the necessary approvals. The
said approach road connecting the mines to the national
highway was built without obtaining mandatory statutory
clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
(iii) For the said reason and for the fact that the ex-lessee had
excavated a substantially large volume of minerals than what
was permitted, this Court and the Supreme Court allowed the
ex-lessee to use the illegal road for the limited purpose of
transporting the already excavated minerals towards the
outstanding royalty dues of the State Government. It is
important to note that till date, the said road continues to be
illegal as it is pending statutory clearances.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iv) The MoEF Guidelines under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980
dated 7.7.2021 for transfer of approvals to mining leases allotted
to a new lessee categorically state that the non-compliance of
conditions stipulated in the approval granted to the ex-lessee
before handing over of forest land shall be transferred as
liabilities to the new allottee (present Petitioner). In such case,
complete compliance of such conditions shall be made prior to
handing over of forest land to the new allottee.
(v) After successful bidding and after issuance of LOI and vesting
order by the State dated 2.7.2025, the Petitioner Company
sought for working permission to operate the mines. Working
permission was granted by the Opp. Party No.2 vide Order
dated 30.7.2025.
(vi) In the said Order dated 30.7.2025, after recording the illegalities
committed by the ex-lessee, permission to execute mining
activities was granted subject to the condition that the Petitioner
will obtain all statutory clearances and will undertake working
within the mining lease area of 51.99 Ha of forest land for which
all statutory clearances have been obtained. Thus, the order
granting working permission can never be construed as deemed
permission to use the illegal road constructed by the ex-lessee
without obtaining the necessary forest clearances.
(vii) The Petitioner, after the working permission was granted,
started excavating minerals from within the mining lease area of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
51.99 Ha of forest land and almost immediately began
transporting the same using the aforesaid illegal road despite
informal objections from the Opp. Party No.2 not to use said
illegal approach road connecting the mineral site to the National
Highway as forest clearance had not yet been obtained for
diversion of forest land for the road.
(viii) The Petitioner submitted the proposal for forest clearance by its
application dated 5.8.2025 in a hurried manner without the
requisite documents for which the Opp. Party No.2, DFO, after
scrutiny, sent further communication dated 11.8.2025 pointing
out the deficiencies in the proposal. The duly completed revised
proposal by the Petitioner rectifying the deficiencies and with
response to the objections raised was submitted on 5.9.2025.
(ix) On receiving the same, the Opp. Party No.2 (DFO) undertook
further scrutiny of the same but could not carry out field
inspection due to constant low pressure rain and persistent
violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by the
Petitioner in using the aforesaid illegal road for continuous
transport of the freshly excavated minerals even as the proposal
was pending approval.
(x) Due to such persistent violation of the applicable law, the Forest
Range Officer, Barbil was constrained to issue a notice dated
25.9.2025 to show cause as to why strict legal action should not
be initiated against the Petitioner for using the reserve forest
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
land for the purpose of illegal road. Despite the aforesaid SCN
dated 25.9.2025, when the Opp. Party No.2 (DFO) carried out
field inspection on 4.10.2025, the Petitioner was seen using the
aforesaid illegal road even though approval of the Petitioner's
proposal for diversion of the forest was pending.
(xi) The Petitioner submitted his reply to the SCN on 17.10.2025
stating, inter alia, that
a. Right to use of the illegal road was enjoyed by the ex-lessee
to transport the stacked ore;
b. The DFO vide his letter dated 18.12.2020 permitted the ex-
lessee to transport the already mined ore using the said
illegal road;
c. Since the State auctioned the mine, a legitimate expectation
was created that transporting the evacuated minerals was
permissible;
d. OMC is using the same illegal road for transport of the
minerals already excavated, hence, the Petitioner should
also be allowed to do the same;
(xii) The aforesaid reply being found insufficient and use of the road
without the approval of the proposal being illegal, the working
permission was revoked vide order dated 19.10.2025 that is
impugned in the present Writ Petition along with a prayer to
allow mining, transportation and dispatch of minerals and not
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
to interfere in the said operations (pending approval of the
diversion proposal for use of the forest land as road).
(xiii) The Opp. Party No.2 (DFO) has since forwarded the proposal of
the Petitioner dated 5.9.2025 to the Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests-cum- Nodal Officer under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 vide his communication dated
23.10.2025 with a delay of 17 days (excluding 5.09.2025 and
23.10.2025) as per the timeline mandated by statute, the delay
being due to the reasons stated above.
(xiv) Immediately after forwarding the aforesaid proposal on
23.10.2025, to expedite the same, the Opp. Party No.2 contacted
the Nodal Officer over phone and determined the further
deficiencies in the proposal and communicated the same to the
Petitioner promptly for early rectification vide his letter dated
26.10.2025 without waiting for formal communication of the
same from the Nodal Officer.
(xv) Subsequently, vide his letter dated 6.11.25, the Nodal Officer has
communicated the deficiencies in the diversion proposal
forwarded by the Opp. Party No.2 which has also been
communicated to the Petitioner promptly.
(xvi) It was also submitted that Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 states that:
"2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use
of forest land for non-forest purpose.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
law for the time being in force in a State, no State
Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government,
any order directing--
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be used for any non-forest purpose.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section
"non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or
clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for any
purpose other than reafforestation."
(xvii) Since, the approach road in the Sidhamath RF was constructed
illegally and diversion proposal for the same has not been
approved by the Central Government till date, the use of the
said illegal forest road without such approval is a clear violation
of Section of the Act as quoted above.
(xviii) The use of the aforesaid illegal road was permitted by this
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court only for the limited
purpose of allowing minerals already excavated by the ex-lessee
to be transported and sold in order to clear the dues owed to the
State. The ex-lessee had at no point complied with the
observations of the State Government for approval of the
diversion proposal and this liability was transferred to the
present Petitioner.
(xix) The situation however, continues until today as the aforesaid
road remains illegal until approval of the proposal of the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Petitioner. It is relevant to state that at no point of time, the
Courts have observed that the use of said illegal road be
permitted for transportation except for dispatch of the already
mined ore for a limited purpose. Nor has the use of the road
become legal without the necessary clearances due to such
limited permission by the Courts.
(xx) The Petitioner, from the very beginning, was fully aware of the
illegal nature of the road as is evident from the pre-bid queries
and the pre-bid conference as well as its letter dated 17.4.2025.
At no point of time has the State ever given any permission to
the Petitioner to use the aforesaid illegal road without obtaining
the statutory clearances, nor have the Opp. Parties ever led the
Petitioner to believe that it can use the said illegal road for
transportation of fresh minerals without complying with the
requirements under the Act. Thus, there can be no question or
scope for legitimate expectation or deemed approval as
contended by the Petitioner.
(xxi) The Working Permission accorded to the Petitioner specifically
restricts the working of the Petitioner within the mining lease
area only, i.e., the 51.99 Ha of forest land for which all statutory
clearances have been obtained. This does NOT include the 0.98
Ha of forest land used for the construction of the approach road
for which approval has not yet been given by the Central
Government.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xxii) Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications by the MoEFCC,
Government of India, issued under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2023 state that:
"xxxxxx
The State Government/Union territory
Administration may authorize officer not below the
rank of Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) having
jurisdiction over the forest land proposed to be
utilized temporarily, to accord permission for such
temporary activities. While taking such decisions, it
shall be ensured that such use of forest land is
unavoidable, for public purposes and of emergent
nature.
xxxxxxxx"
(xxiii)The purpose cited by the Petitioner, named, the transportation
of minerals extracted from a mining lease having a tenure of 50
years cannot, by any reasonable or legal interpretation, be
treated as temporary, emergent, or public-purpose use of forest
land. On the contrary, such transportation constitutes a
commercial and continuous activity forming an integral part of
mining operations, which are expressly prohibited on forest
land without statutory approvals as stated above.
(xxiv)The allegation on the Opp. Party No.2 causing delay in scrutiny
of the diversion proposal of the Petitioner is also not correct.
According to the timeline given in the aforesaid Guidelines, the
delay in forwarding the proposal after scrutiny and field
inspection was only 17 days. It is further relevant to state that
the Opp. Party No.2, in fact, showing bona fides, expedited the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
scrutiny as explained above. Therefore, no mala fide could be
attributed to the Opp. Party No.2 (DFO) as alleged.
(xxv) Rule 10(2) of the 2023 Rules states that in-principle approval for
all proposals except those in sub-rule (1), shall be examined and
disposed of by the Central Government as provided by the
Rules:
"(2) All proposals, other than those referred to in
sub-rule (1) and following proposals, namely:-
xxxxxxxx;
(ii) mining;
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
(v) ex-post facto approval involving violation of the
provisions of the Adhiniyam;
shall be examined and disposed of by the Central
Government in the manner specified under these
rules."
(xxvi)Thus, even in-principle approval for the aforesaid illegal road
could not have been granted to the Petitioner under the Rules
without approval for the Central Government as it is a mining
project. Moreover, the prayers urged before this court are
contended to be untenable in much as the same could have been
granted by the competent authority (MoEFCC) which has not
been arraigned as a party to the present petition.
(xxvii) It is also submitted that if the Petitioner is allowed to use the
aforesaid illegal road without appropriate diversion of forest
land and compulsory afforestation as mandated by statute,
hundreds of tippers and trucks will ply 24 hours a day to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
transport the minerals excavated by the Petitioner, destroying
the entire forest habitat and putting the existing flora and fauna
to grave peril. Any such permission, even temporary, will aid in
perpetrating an illegality that is not acceptable qua the
environmental cost it is bound to impose.
(xxviii) For the reasons started above, the Writ Petition merits no
consideration and is liable to dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. This writ petition challenges the revocation of the working permission
dated 30.7.2025 granted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar, to
the Petitioner-Company over an area of 51.99 hectares of already
diverted forest land forming part of the Roida-I Iron and Manganese
Mine. The impugned order dated 19.10.2025 rescinds such permission
on the ground that the Petitioner had undertaken activities beyond
the mining lease area by using a road within the Siddhamatha
Reserved Forest for transportation without requisite forest clearance.
The question before this Court is not whether mining within the lease
area was permissible, it was whether the subsequent use of forest
land outside the lease, contrary to the explicit conditions of
permission, vitiates the State's action of revocation.
7. It is not in dispute that the working permission of 30.7.2025 was
conditional. Five specific conditions were enumerated therein, of
which the fifth was categorical--"the working permission shall be
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
confined to the mining lease area only and shall not extend to any
other forest land outside the lease." This condition, forming the very
heart of the permission, delineated the spatial and legal limits of
activity authorised by the Forest Department. It operated as a
statutory safeguard ensuring that the act of diversion approved by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) did
not spill over into unapproved forest territory.
8. The record demonstrates that prior to the auction and execution of the
Mine Development and Production Agreement (MDPA), the
Petitioner was fully aware that the approach road to the Roida-I block
lay within the undiverted area of the Siddhamatha Reserve Forest and
was not covered by any existing forest clearance. This becomes
abundantly clear from the Petitioner's own pre-bid query dated
21.3.2025 addressed to the State Government, specifically asking
whether the "approach road from NH-520 to the Roida-I block, being
outside the block area and falling within forest land, could be used
post-auction." The State's written clarification dated 7.4.2025
explicitly stated that transportation would be "subject to applicable
law and the bidder's own due diligence".
9. Despite this knowledge, the Petitioner, immediately after execution of
the lease, applied for working permission restricted to the 51.99
hectares of diverted area but soon thereafter commenced
transportation through the same forest road pending forest diversion
approval for 0.928 hectares adjoining the western boundary of the
lease. The forest diversion proposal for that stretch was admittedly
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
filed on 5.8.2025, and as per the correspondence on record, the
Petitioner was well aware that until such approval was granted, no
activity could be undertaken on that portion of forest land. The
Petitioner's conduct thus amounts to a conscious departure from the
lawful boundaries of its working permission.
10. The distinction between working within the lease
area and transporting through unapproved forest land is not a mere
technicality. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the guidelines
issued under it draw a clear line between diversion of forest land for
mining and for ancillary infrastructure such as roads, power lines, or
conveyor belts. Each such use requires a separate forest clearance.
Therefore, even if the mining lease area itself stood validly diverted,
the act of using adjoining forest land for transportation without prior
approval constitutes an independent contravention of Section 2 of the
1980 Act.
11. This Court takes note of the Petitioner's submission that the same
road had been used by the previous lessee, Mideast Integrated Steels
Limited (MISL), and that such use was tolerated or even permitted in
the past. However, the factual context of those permissions is
materially different. MISL's permission arose pursuant to specific
interim directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23722 of 2011 and later
to a limited order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.1.2020 in
I.A. No. 30915 of 2019. Those directions merely permitted transport
of already mined and stacked ore under supervision and were
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
expressly time-bound. They cannot, by any stretch, confer a perpetual
right of passage through reserved forest to any successor lessee.
12. Judicial orders of such limited character are not precedents in the
constitutional sense. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's indulgence to
MISL to liquidate its pre-existing ore stock was a pragmatic
arrangement under continuing mandamus in W.P.(C) No. 114 of
2014 concerning mining irregularities in Odisha. That order neither
declared the route to be lawful nor exempted it from forest clearance.
The argument that such temporary permission has attained the status
of a permanent right is wholly misconceived. The settled position of
law is that no estoppel can operate against statute, particularly against
the prohibitions contained in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)
Act.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
judgments in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi4 and Ambica Quarry
Works v. State of Gujarat5 recently in Forest Land Construction of
Multistoreyed Buildings in Maharashtra, In re6. Vide Order dated
12.12.1996 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India7, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed thus:
"4. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a
view to check further deforestation which ultimately results
in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made
therein for the conservation of forests and for matters
(1985) 3 SCC 643
(1987) 1 SCC 213
(2025) 9 SCC 359
(1997) 2 SCC 267
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of
the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word
"forest" must be understood according to its dictionary
meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised
forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or
otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest
(Conservation) Act. The term "forest land", occurring in
Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in
the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in
the government record irrespective of the ownership. This is
how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of
the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters
connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so
understood irrespective of the ownership or classification
thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the
decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of
Gujarat [Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987)
1 SCC 213 : 1986 INSC 267] , Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendrav. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC
504] and recently in the Order dated 29-11-1996 [Supreme
Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun
Development Authority, (1997) 11 SCC 605] . The earlier
decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram
Modi [State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC
643 : 1985 INSC 126] has, therefore, to be understood in the
light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary
to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions
of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of
any State Government or authority. This has become
necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the
State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to
permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly
contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to
assume that any State Government which has failed to
appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures
without any further delay.
5. We further direct as under:
I. General
1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it
is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is
required for any non-forest activity within the area of any
"forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all
ongoing activity within any forest in any State throughout
the country, without the prior approval of the Central
Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that
the running of sawmills of any kind including veneer or
plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest
purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior
approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such
activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Every State Government
must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities
forthwith."
14. A perusal of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would reveal that the Court has in unequivocal terms held that in
accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all ongoing activity within any
forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval
of the Central Government, must be ceased immediately.
15. It is thus amply clear that for permitting any non-forest activity within
the area of any "forest", it was necessary to have prior approval of the
Central Government and all ongoing activity within any forest in any
State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the
Central Government, must cease forthwith. This being the settled
position of law, as highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Forest
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Land Construction of Multi-storeyed Buildings in Maharashtra case
(supra ) has formed the foundation of this Court's present judgment.
16. It was also argued that similar permission had earlier been granted to
the Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC) and hence the petitioner is
entitled to parity. This contention misconceives both fact and law. The
OMC's use of the route was authorised pursuant to specific directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for a limited period to clear pre-
existing stock, subject to close supervision and environmental
safeguards akin to the limited permission granted to MISL. The
doctrine of equality under Article 14 does not envisage parity in
illegality. What is permitted exceptionally under judicial oversight
cannot be claimed as a precedent by a private lessee as of right.
17. It is equally significant that the working permission itself, issued after
careful scrutiny on 30.7.2025, expressly required that all activities
must remain within the diverted forest land only. The inclusion of
that condition was not ornamental; it reflected a deliberate
administrative response to the Petitioner's own pre-bid
acknowledgment that the approach road lacked clearance. In effect,
the State granted permission to work the mine, but not to use the
forest road until due approval was obtained. The Petitioner, therefore,
cannot convert this limited sanction into a blanket authority for
operations outside the demarcated area.
18. The subsequent show-cause notice dated 25.9.2025 issued by the
Forest Range Officer, Barbil Range, records that inspection teams
found active transportation through the reserved forest stretch
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
beyond the lease boundary. Photographs and GPS-based maps
appended to the field report confirm wheel tracks and fresh
movement of ore-carrying vehicles along the unapproved route. The
Petitioner was called upon to explain this contravention within three
days. Instead of immediately ceasing such activity, it sought extension
of time and, even in its eventual reply dated 17.10.2025, did not deny
the use of the road but attempted to justify it by referring to past
practices of MISL and OMC. Such justification, in the face of an
express condition to the contrary, could not exonerate the breach.
19. The concept of a working permission is sui generis in forest
jurisprudence. It is not a substitute for forest clearance but a
temporary operational allowance limited strictly to the area already
diverted under an approved proposal. The Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) through its guidelines dated
7.7.2021 has clarified that working permissions are "transitory in
nature" and may be granted by the competent authority only for the
purpose of enabling lawful extraction within the diverted portion of
land pending execution of lease or renewal formalities. Such
permission, by its very nature, is liable to cancellation upon deviation
from any of its stipulations. It follows that the Petitioner's claim of a
vested or irrevocable right under the said permission is legally
untenable.
20. The Petitioner's argument that the revocation is ultra vires because the
working permission did not explicitly authorise cancellation is
misconceived. The power to withdraw flows not only from the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
general conditions appended to the permission itself but also from the
statutory control vested in the Divisional Forest Officer under the
Odisha Forest Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Where the permission is conditional, the breach of any such condition
automatically results in cessation of its force. This position has been
repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has
been held that administrative clearances in forest matters are
inherently revocable if their terms are violated.
21. This Court has perused the counter-affidavit filed by the State, which
narrates that repeated inspections in September 2025 revealed
continuous vehicular movement through 0.928 ha of forest land
outside the lease boundary. The field officers recorded fresh
compaction of soil, removal of undergrowth, and deposition of over-
burden material along the edges of the track. These facts were
corroborated by contemporaneous satellite imagery annexed to the
record. The Petitioner's belated justification that the road was
"existing" cannot absolve it from the statutory obligation of obtaining
clearance for its use, for even maintenance or improvement of an
existing forest track for non-forest purposes amounts to diversion
under Section 2 of the 1980 Act.
22. The plea of legitimate expectation raised by the Petitioner also
deserves to be rejected. Legitimate expectation can arise only when
the representation relied upon is lawful and within the authority of
the maker.The Petitioner cannot claim expectation founded upon
permissions granted in earlier proceedings that were expressly time-
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
bound and case-specific. Court orders allowing MISL or OMC to
evacuate pre-existing stock was issued under the peculiar
circumstances dealing with the closure of several mines. In fact, that
limited indulgence was intended to balance equities, not to create a
precedent. Therefore, the invocation of that order as a shield against
present violation is wholly unsustainable.
23. The Court further notes that the Petitioner, even before the execution
of its mining lease, had sought clarification from the State about the
status of forest clearance for the approach road. In its own letter dated
17.4.2025, it acknowledged that no such clearance existed and
requested temporary permission "till such time Forest Clearance for
the access road is approved." Having thus admitted the absence of
clearance, the Petitioner cannot subsequently claim that the same road
was impliedly included in the working permission. The principle
of contemporanea expositio applies with full force, the conduct of the
Petitioner contemporaneous with the grant of permission
demonstrates its own understanding that the approval did not cover
the road.
24. The statutory scheme under the Forest (Conservation) Act does not
permit any relaxation by executive discretion. Section 2 mandates
prior approval of the Central Government for any use of forest land
for non-forest purposes. Mining operations, including transportation
within forest areas, are quintessentially non-forest purposes. The
object of the provision is preventive rather than punitive; it seeks to
ensure that forest land is not used for ancillary activities until
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
clearance is secured. In order to ignore this would defeat the
constitutional directive of Article 48-A and the fundamental duty
under Article 51-A(g) to protect and improve the natural
environment.
25. The Petitioner's submission that the DFO acted in haste or mala fide
because the order was issued on a Sunday stands refuted by the
record. The inspection report establishing violation was received on
18.10.2025, and the order of revocation was made the following day in
exercise of urgent administrative necessity to prevent further damage
to the forest. The immediacy of action cannot, by itself, be equated
with malice. Administrative prudence often demands prompt
intervention where ongoing activity is in clear breach of statutory
prohibition.
26. The Court also finds no procedural infirmity in the manner of
revocation. The Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on
25.9.2025 and granted opportunity to reply. It submitted its
explanation on 17.10.2025, which was duly considered before the
impugned order was passed. The principles of natural justice do not
require a further oral hearing when the facts are admitted and the
breach is evident from record. What the Petitioner seeks under the
guise of natural justice, is not hearing but condonation of violation,
which law cannot provide.
27. In evaluating proportionality, it must be borne in mind that the
permission itself was a conditional concession, not a property right.
Revocation of a permission obtained subject to compliance cannot be
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
characterised as disproportionate when the very object of the
permission has been frustrated by breach. On the contrary, permitting
continued operation despite violation would amount to abdication of
statutory duty by the forest authorities. The DFO, therefore, acted in
consonance with the doctrine of proportionality by choosing the least
intrusive measure consistent with environmental protection--
revocation of permission limited to the breached area, without
cancellation of the mining lease itself.
28. At the heart of this controversy lies the interface between industrial
enterprise and statutory environmental discipline. The Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 creates a complete code regulating the
diversion of forest land. Its requirements are mandatory and leave no
room for inference or implied permission. Every use of forest land,
whether for mining pits, haulage roads, or auxiliary facilities,
demands prior approval of the Central Government. This principle
was reiterated in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
(supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even
ancillary non-forest activity within reserved forest attracts the rigour
of Section 2. Against this settled backdrop, the petitioner's attempt to
derive a continuing right of access from past interim indulgences
must fail.
29. The record clearly establishes that the working permission dated
30.7.2025 was confined to 51.99 ha. of forest land already diverted
under the MoEF&CC approval of 19.2.2008. Condition No. 5 thereof
expressly limited all activity "within the mining lease area only." This
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
condition, being a stipulation of statutory origin, has the same force as
a statutory direction. When a permission is hedged by such a
condition, any contravention strikes at its root and renders it voidable
at the instance of the authority. The petitioner's subsequent use of
0.928 ha of undiverted forest land, even temporarily, was in direct
derogation of this clause and attracted immediate consequence.
30. This Court is unable to accept the argument that the impugned order
constitutes double jeopardy because the petitioner's mining lease
continues to subsist. The lease confers mineral rights; the working
permission concerns ecological clearance. Their coexistence is
sequential, not coextensive. Cancellation of the latter for breach of its
conditions does not extinguish the former but merely suspends
operational activity until compliance. The State, therefore, acted with
circumspection by limiting its action to revocation of the working
permission rather than annulling the entire lease.
31. The principle of estoppel invoked by the petitioner equally lacks
merit. Estoppel cannot override a statutory prohibition or operate to
perpetuate an illegality. The State's previous conduct, even if tolerant,
cannot legalise a continuing contravention of the Forest
(Conservation) Act.
32. This Court further observes that environmental regulation serves not
merely administrative order but constitutional fidelity. Article 48-A
enjoins the State to protect forests and wildlife; Article 51-A(g) casts a
corresponding duty on citizens. When commercial expediency
collides with ecological preservation, the balance must tilt toward the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
latter. The DFO, in acting promptly to prevent further unauthorised
use of reserved forest, has discharged a constitutional obligation. The
action, therefore, is imbued with legitimacy of purpose and cannot be
branded as punitive or hostile.
33. The plea that the State's decision was motivated by revenue
considerations or external influence is wholly unsubstantiated. The
impugned order contains a concise but sufficient statement of reasons
founded on inspection reports and admitted facts. The absence of
prolix reasoning does not imply absence of application of mind. The
functionary exercised a quasi-administrative power after due notice
and verification. In writ jurisdiction, this Court is concerned with the
decision-making process, not the decision's economic impact upon the
petitioner.
34. The petitioner's proper remedy lies in pursuing forest diversion for
the 0.928 ha stretch through the prescribed procedure under Rule 6 of
the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. The mere usage of a road
without any forest diversion in the past, does not confer any right on
the Petitioner to insist upon usage of the same de hors forest diversion.
Once such approval is granted by the MoEF&CC and consequential
State Government orders are issued, nothing prevents the petitioner
from seeking restoration of operational permission. More so, the
Petitioner has all along been awake to the fact that the road doesn't
have the requite clearance for being used and yet they have
themselves chosen to go ahead with the same. The State's present
action does not extinguish that liberty; it merely enforces compliance
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
in the interregnum. This balance preserves both regulatory integrity
and industrial continuity in lawful form.
35. In sum, the sequence of events--from the petitioner's own pre-bid
acknowledgment of the absence of clearance, through its violation of
Condition No. 5, to the DFO's consequent withdrawal--reveals no
element of arbitrariness, malice, or disproportionality. On the
contrary, the action reflects adherence to statutory duty and
environmental prudence. The impugned order of 19.10.2025 is an
administrative determination flowing from breach of a condition that
was fundamental to the permission itself. No ground for judicial
interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made
out.
VI. CONCLUSION:
36. The environment, in its quiet majesty, is not a passive backdrop to
human enterprise but the living manuscript of our collective destiny.
It has been wisely said, "When the last tree is cut, and the last river
poisoned, man will discover he cannot eat money." The law, therefore, is
not an adversary of industry but its moral compass, reminding every
enterprise that prosperity without preservation is peril, not progress.
A miner's licence is a privilege, not a prerogative; his first duty is
stewardship, not exploitation. For every ton of ore extracted, there lies
an unwritten debt to the soil, the forest, and the unseen future. The
maxim salus populi suprema lex esto meaning thereby, the welfare of the
people is the supreme law which finds its truest resonance in the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
protection of the environment. Those who quarry the earth must
remember that they are not owners of its bounty, but trustees of its
grace.
37. In the present case, the lesson that emerges is timeless yet immediate
that the pursuit of mineral wealth cannot trample upon the sanctity of
nature's trust. The company before this Court, while endowed with
commercial acumen, appears to have momentarily forgotten that
every mine carved into a forest is a dialogue between necessity and
restraint, and the law, like a vigilant sentinel, ensures that ambition
does not silence duty.
38. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that:
a. The Opposite Parties herein have not committed any error,
procedural or substantive, in revoking the working
permission dated 30.7.2025.
b. The permission in question could have been granted only
after approval by the competent authority (MoEFCC)
exercising its powers under the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and rules framed thereunder and
not the present opposite parties.
c. It appears from the records that the Petitioner has already
engaged in correspondence with Opp. Party No.2 (DFO)
who has since forwarded the proposal of the Petitioner dated
5.9.2025 to the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests-cum- Nodal Officer under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
d. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate
authority and take all lawful steps to obtain requisite forest
clearance and other permissions for the approach road in
accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and
rules framed thereunder.
e. Upon securing such approval from the appropriate authority,
the Petitioner may apply afresh for restoration of working
permission, which the Opposite Parties herein shall consider
on its own merits expeditiously.
39. In light of the above, this Writ Petition stands disposed of on the
aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
40. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th Nov., 2025/
