[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.2823 of 2026
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Janaki Kanta Mahapatra, Advocate
along with Mr. Asutosh Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Biswabara Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
17.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships
would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition,
call for the records and after hearing the parties allow
the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/
mandamus and/or any other further writ and direct to
extend the tenure of Lease i.e. Kotagarh Stone
Quarry-1, Ranapur Tahasil, Dist.-Nayagarh, Odisha
under Annexure-2 for a further period of 1 year w.e.f
31.03.2026. And/or to compensate the petitioner for loss
sustained by him for such period within a stipulated
period, which may fixed by this Hon'ble court.
And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
2. The petitioner, being successful bidder on participation in
the auction in respect of Kotagarh Stone Quarry, Kotagarh, Tahasil:
Ranpur in the district of Nayagarh on 07.10.2020, upon receipt of
NOC from the Forest Department on 12.03.2025, executed a lease
agreement with the State Government, on 07.06.2021 for a period of
five years from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2026. The petitioner has
received the transit pass from the Tahasildar, Ranapur on
27.11.2021.
3. On 08.05.2025, the petitioner submitted an application to
the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Mineral,
Nayagarh (opposite party No.4) for extension of period of lease for
lifting of pending material since 2023-24, but the same is pending
till date for consideration.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
after execution of the lease agreement the petitioner could not
immediately lift the quarry for the reason beyond his control
inasmuch as certain legal paraphernalia were to be completed. The
petitioner submitted a representation seeking extension of the period
of lease for a further period of one year with effect from
31.03.2026. He placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.12.2025
rendered in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of
Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025.
5. Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite parties opposed such contention of the
petitioner and submitted that in absence of any specific rules in this
regard, there cannot be extension of period of lease.
6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the
respective parties.
7. As is apparent from the record that the petitioner beseeches
issue of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to extend the
period of lease for the period which he could not carry on activity.
8. This Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra)
desisted in compelling the opposite parties to extend the period of
lease as sought for by the petitioner in absence of any express
provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2016. This Court in the case of Suraj Agrawal Vs. State of
Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated
06.01.2026 considering the plight of the petitioner therein for not
being able to operate the quarry due to circumstances beyond his
control observed as follows:
"4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions
along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this
Court does not feel it apt to issue writ of mandamus to extend
the tenure of lease deed as prayed for by the petitioner.
4.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the OMMC
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."
4.6. In view of the above rule conferring power on the
Government to consider deserving case for relaxing the
provisions of the OMMC Rules, it may be apposite for the
petitioner to approach the Government for doing the needful to
enable him to avail benefit of extension as prayed for in the writ
petition. This Court, therefore, disposes of the writ petition
reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate
authority, within a period of two weeks from date, as undertaken
by the counsel for the petitioner. In the event such
representation/grievance petition is submitted to the
appropriate authority by the petitioner within the said period,
the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the
petitioner pragmatically within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of filing of such representation and communicate the
decision taken thereon to the petitioner forthwith."
9. However, this Court appreciating the fact that the
petitioner could not operate the quarry due to reasons beyond his
control cannot be blamed for breach of any terms and conditions
made following observation in Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra):
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
7.5. ***It was all along the stand of the State in the
said report that the prayer for extension and/or renewal of
a period in which the order of the NGT was operative
cannot be granted in absence of any statutory Rules or the
policy having taken in this regard and in pursuit of
determining the same, the apex Court [Dharmendra
Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
(2021) 1 SCC 93], in unequivocal terms held that if such a
deprivation is shown, which cannot be attributed to the
conduct of a mining leaseholder, the law permits the
refund of the security deposit and the advanced royalty
deposited by him in the following:
"43. We, thus, find that the appropriate course of
action to be adopted in this case cannot be to extend the
lease for the obstructed period but to direct that the
security deposit, if not already refunded, should be
refunded and the amount deposited by the
appellants/leaseholders as advance royalties to the
respondent State be also paid back to them along with
something more."
7.6. A distinction can be drawn between an involuntary act
and a voluntary act. In the event, the lessee or the lessor
has committed a fault or committed a breach of the terms
and conditions of the lease or the statutory provisions, the
equity does not come to play. The position would have
been different when neither of the contracting parties is at
fault, but the deprivation is by virtue of an interdict
created by an order of the NGT, such involuntary act
cannot be equated with the voluntary act nor the principles
governing such situation should be blurred.
8. As indicated hereinabove, we have noticed that in some
of the cases, the Government have taken a decision on the
representation of the mining leaseholder to extend the
period and, therefore, we direct the authorities to consider
the said prayer independently without being swayed by the
observations made hereinabove. In the event, the
authorities declined to extend the period or renew the
lease, the security deposit and the advance royalty paid by
the petitioner shall be refunded within two weeks from the
said decision with an interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of the deposit till the payment thereof."
10. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to consider
the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2025 seeking
extension of lease period for which he could not operate within two
weeks without being influenced by any of the observation(s) made
hereinabove. In the event, the authority concerned declines to
extend the period or renew the lease, the security deposit and the
advance royalty paid by the petitioner shall be refunded within a
period of two weeks from the decision so taken with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment
thereof.
11. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aswini
Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge)
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Feb-2026 14:37:54
