Bidyadhar Patra vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9577 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bidyadhar Patra vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 30 October, 2025

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P. (C) No.30182 of 2025
         Bidyadhar Patra                         ....             Petitioner
                                          Mr.Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate

                                        -versus-
         State of Odisha and another               ....       Opposite Parties

                      Mr.Subha Bikash Panda, Addl. Government Advocate
                                    CORAM:
                         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      AND
                     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                30.10.2025
   01.    1.        The instant writ petition is at the behest of the existing

quarry permit holder seeking to challenge the letter No.3441 dated 9th October, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer, Cuttack Circle, Jagatpur, Cuttack (opposite party No.2) on the ground that Rule 8 (4) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 provides a minimum period of five (05) years in relation to quarry leases, and therefore, the authorities cannot put an end to such leases prior thereto.

2. The facts unfurled in the petition would reveal that a lease agreement was duly executed in favour of the petitioner on 11 th November, 2020 for a period of five (05) financial years commencing from 2020-21 to 2024-25, i.e., 31st March, 2025. Subsequently, another agreement was executed for a period from 1st April 2025 to 10th November, 2025 on the premise that because of certain intervening circumstances, the petitioner could not enjoy the full period of five (05) years, and therefore, is entitled to such period.

2.1. It is a specific stand of the petitioner that Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 confers power upon the State Government to make Rules in respect of the Minor Minerals which includes the terms and conditions on which such quarry leases, the mining leases or other Mineral Concessions may be granted or renewed. According to him, the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 is framed in exercise of the Rule making power emanating from the Parent Act providing for an extension of the period, and therefore, the authorities cannot refuse to extend the said lease. 2.2. It is further submitted that the authorities have not taken into account the intervening pandemic which impeded the mining activities to be undertaken by the petitioner, and therefore, should have granted such period, so that the petitioner could enjoy the full period of the lease so granted. Lastly, it is submitted that the period enshrined in the statutory provision cannot be treated as a rigid and inflexible. The authorities may extend the period or renew the lease to such period as it may think fit. The counsel placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 321.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the authority took into account the period during which the petitioner was prevented from extracting the Minor Minerals. Because of the pandemic having struck globally, further agreement is executed extending the period which would be reflected from the terms and conditions embodied in the said agreement. It is further submitted that there is no mandate provided either in the Act or the Rules to grant an extension of the period and the

discretion is vested upon the authorities to renew the lease depending upon various factors and circumstances within the outer cap of 10 years, and therefore, if the authority has taken a conscious decision, it does not invite any interference of this Court.

4. On the conspectus of the submissions advanced before us, the seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the quarry lease holder has an inchoate or a statutory right to have the lease extended or renewed under Rule 8 (4) of the said Act.

5. It is no longer res integra that ordinarily the Rules are framed in exercise of the rule making power conferred in the statute or the Parent Act in relation to the incidences or the eventualities contemplated therein. The Rules of 2016 is promulgated as a subordinate legislation in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act and it would not be a misnomer to suggest that Clause-D of sub - section (1A) of Section 15 provides for the terms and the conditions relating to the quarry lease, mining leases or other mineral concessions to be granted or renewed. Sub-section (1A) of Section 15 is a repository of the legislative intent that it is not mandatory on the part of the State Government to make Rules in respect of all the eventualities or the incidences incorporated therein and the Rule may be restricted to any or more of such incidences or the eventualities contemplated therein. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted that it is obligatory on the part of the State to frame the Rules in respect of all such categories, it would frustrate the expressions "for all or any of the following matters". The moment the power to make Rule is conferred by the statute and such Rule may be framed for any or all, even if the Rules so framed does not engulf all such

event or incidences, it cannot be faulted with nor be declared contrary to the spirit of the Parent Act.

6. Be that as it may, the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 has been framed and the duration of the mining lease is incorporated therein not only indicating the minimum period but also the outer limit beyond which the authority should not grant such quarry leases. The moment the legislature has put an outer cap beyond which no power is conferred upon the authority, the authorities denuded of the power to exceed such outer limit and in such event it does so entails the decision liable to be interfered with. The position would have been different when the legislation provides a minimum period of the lease without keeping any outer cap thereof and in absence of any consequential provisions incorporated therein there is no fetter on the part of the authority to extend or renew the said period.

6.1. The judgment referred by the petitioner in Common Cause (supra) in fact laid down the aforementioned principles where the minimum period was provided in Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 without any outer cap and in such backdrop, it was held that the minimum period so provided has to be adhered to but does not take away any right of the authorities to extend the said period. Precisely for such reason, the Apex Court in Paragraph-35 of the said judgment held as follows:

"35. As the tenure of appointment of Director of Enforcement is not a maximum period of two years, a person can be appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of more than two years. If the Government has the power to appoint a person as Director of Enforcement for a period of more than two years, Section 25 of the CVC Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act."

6.2. So far as the instant case is concerned, it is undisputed that the authorities have adhered the mandatory minimum period of the quarry lease as provided in proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and have subsequently executed an agreement taking into account the commencement and the expiration date provided in the lease fell short of five years and decided to revise the tenure period strictly in tune with the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8. 6.3. The action of the authority cannot be said to be infirm and/or illegal having found strictly in tune with the statutory provision. Whether the authority would renew or extend the period of the lease is within the wisdom and/or domain of the authority and in the event any such prayer is made, it is open to the authorities to take a conscious decision thereupon.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi

Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO