[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sukanti 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
WP(C) No.3967 of 2026
Sukanti Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 17.02.2026
01. 1. The present writ petition is filed with the following
prayer(s):-
"Under the facts and circumstances narrated above,
this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to
why the impugned Letter No.65 dated 13.01.2026
issued by the Mining Officer, Cuttack under Annexure-
4 of the Writ Petition shall not be quashed and if the
Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute, by
quashing the said letter, declaring the decision taken
by the Opposite Party No.2 not to renew the lease dead
in favour of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary;
And consequently the Opposite Party No.2 be
directed to renew the lease deed for Sairat Source
namely Kathajodi River Sand, Mundamuhan for a
further period of five years.
And pass any other order(S)/Writ(s)/Direction(s)
as deem fit and proper;
And for which Act of your kindness the
Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."
2. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Tanmay Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner on 18.02.2021 executed a quarry lease in respect
of Kathajodi River Sand, Mundamuhan for a period of five years
with approved Mining Plans and valid Environmental Clearance.
Despite complying with obligations and paying dues, the petitioner
could not extract the requisite quantity due to force majeure
circumstances and restrictions imposed during pandemic. The
petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2025 seeking extension of
period of lease was rejected by the Mining Officer, Cuttack on
13.01.2026, citing lack of statutory power. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court directed the
authority to consider the representation seeking extension of lease
period during which the sand sairat could not be operated by the
lease holder in the cases of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty vs. State of
Odisha, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025 vide judgment dated 17.12.2025
and Suraj Agrawal vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C)
No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate though
resisted grant of extension of period of lease due to absence of
power under the statute, however conceded that case of certain
lease holders were considered by the competent authority.
4. Considered the submission advanced by the counsel for
respective parties, it is admitted fact on record that the tenure of the
lease in respect of River Sand Quarry at Mundamuhan was granted
in favour of the petitioner by way of execution of lease deed on
18.02.2021 and, thereby the period of lease would expire on
18.02.2026.
5. Perusal of judgment dated 17.12.2025 in the case of
Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra), it is revealed that this Court has
made the following observations:-
"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."
6. This Court in Suraj Agrawal vs. State of Odisha and
others (supra) 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 feels 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.
4.7. As abundant caution it is clarified that nothing
stated above on facts be construed as expression of
opinion on the merit of the matter. The appropriate
authority is free to take independent decision on the merit
of the matter on the basis of the material placed on
record before him by the petitioner."
7. Considered the aforesaid submissions and contentions of
the learned counsel for the respective parties.
7.1. It emanates from the documents enclosed to the writ
petition that the petitioner was granted river sand quarry at
Mundamuhan on execution of lease deed dated 18.02.2021 with
the Tahasildar, Barang for a period of five years, commencing
from 2021-22 to 2025-26. On account of pandemic situation
prevailing in entire world and other administrative exigencies
the petitioner could not operate the quarry for certain period.
7.2. Considering the grievance of the petitioner that on
account of pandemic situation during the relevant period and
other administrative exigency, the petitioner could not operate
the quarry for certain period as mentioned above.
7.3. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of a case
being considered by this Court with regard to similarly
circumstanced person in Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra Vrs. State of
Odisha and others in W.P. (C) No.36082 of 2020, as relied on by
the counsel for the petitioner to buttress the claim of the
petitioner. Said case was disposed of vide order dated 31st May,
2021 showing indulgence taking into account the circumstances
beyond control of the petitioner therein.
7.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions
along with the decisions 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.
7.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the Odisha
Minor Minerals Concession 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."
7.6. 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.
8. As an abundant caution, it is clarified that nothing stated
above on facts be construed as expression of opinion on the merit
of the matter. The appropriate authority is free to take
independent decision on the merit of the matter on the basis of the
material placed on record before him by the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ
petition along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any,
stand 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 14:37:55
