Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1611 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         W.P.(C) No. 27440 of 2025

 Dillip Kumar Sahoo                               ....                 Petitioner


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



Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner                   : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate

For Opposite Parties             : Mr. Saswat Das,
                                   Additional Government Advocate


                     CORAM:
            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                       AND
      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                              JUDGMENT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 20th February, 2026

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. We are not unmindful nor oblivion of the rampant illegal

mining activities across the country and whenever any action is

taken by the authorities, approach is made to the Court assailing their

actions on the perceived arbitrariness, non-adherence of the

provisions of law and above all, the exercise of powers beyond the

conferment under the statutory provisions.

2. A public spirited person highlighted such issues by filing a

writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India and the apex Court took serious note of the

same and delivered a judgment on 2nd August, 2017 in Common

Cause v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499. An

argument was advanced before the said Constitution Bench at the

behest of the mining operators that illegal mining cannot be

presumed nor can be said in this regard, if the mining activities are

within the geographical limits of a mining lease area.

3. The word "any land" appearing under Section 21(5) of the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in

short, 'the Act') came up for consideration before the Bench and the

same has been interpreted in unequivocal words that the violation of

any terms and conditions of the provisions of law or the mining plan,

even within the leased area, comes within the ambit of said

expressions. It leads to an inescapable conclusion that Section 21(5)

of the said Act is not only restricted to illegal mining activities

beyond the peripheral of the leased area but also engulfed within

itself any violation within the leased area.

4. The present case is one of the examples where the

authorities found not only the quarry activities having undertaken by

the petitioner outside the quarry limits/area but also the construction

of a road across the river impeding the natural flow of the water.

Further, two excavators were found stationed outside the quarry

lease area, which the authorities presumed to have been employed

for quarrying beyond the leased area.

5. Resultantly, a show cause was issued upon the petitioner

which was duly replied to. The petitioner tacitly admitted the

allegations made in the said show cause except that mere positioning

of two excavators outside the leased area does not tantamount to the

illegal quarry activities as those were kept for safety purposes. So far

as the construction of road is concerned, the petitioner took a stand

that since the villagers were protesting the vehicular movements

from the road and preventing the petitioner to load and transport

sand, for which the permission has been granted, the temporary road

was constructed for an easy access to the leased area and after

receipt of the said notice, the same has been abandoned.

6. The authorities, after taking into account such stand taken

by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the same is not

satisfactory and proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees

fifty thousand) under Rule 33(17) of the Odisha Minor Minerals

Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, 'the Rules') and also imposed the

royalty, the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the

environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.31,508/- (rupees thirty

one thousand five hundred eight). It further appears from the said

order that the petitioner was directed to submit the tax invoices/bills

of the seized two excavators for taking further action towards the

realization of the penalty in terms of a Notification No.9238/SM,

Bhubaneswar, dated 25.10.2024.

7. The petitioner has challenged the said order primarily on

the ground that the authorities have acted in gross violation of the

provisions contained under Rule 33(17) of the Rules, as the incidents

encompassing such activation of the process are eminently and

conspicuously absent. It is further stated that mere stationing of two

excavators outside the leased area, which does not appear to be in

operation at the time of the inspection, does not ipso facto

tantamount to a violation of any terms and conditions of the Rules.

Without abandoning such explanation, it is sought to be contended

that subsequently the said excavators have been given in custody of

the Police, taking shelter under sub-rule (3) of Rule 51 of the said

Rules which is illegal and violative of the said provision per se.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional

Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite

parties-State took a plea that on a surprise spot inspection by the

team, certain deficiencies and/or violations were noticed, which are

vividly reflected in the Show Cause Notice and the aforementioned

two excavators were confiscated/seized with an intent to be used and

were kept under the custody/zimma of the person from whose

custody it was so recovered. It is, thus, submitted that so far as the

letter relied upon by the petitioner for invocation of Rule 51(3) of the

said Rules is concerned, it is only the intimation to the concerned

Police Officer to take action in terms of the said provisions and,

therefore, the allegation of the petitioner does not appear to be

correct. On the imposition of the penalty, it is submitted that the said

provision attracts the imposition up to the maximum limit of

Rs.50,000/-, which cannot be said to be infirm and/or illegal.

9. On the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions, the issues

emanating therefrom pertain to the invocation of the provisions

contained under Rule 33(17) of the Rules while imposing a penalty.

An ancillary issue has also cropped up in relation to the confiscation

of said two excavators, which were found stationed outside the

quarry lease area.

10. Taking the first point and before we embark our journey in

determining the stands taken by the respective parties, it would be

relevant to quote Rule 33(17) of the Odisha Minor Minerals

Concession Rules, 2016, which runs thus:

"33. *** (17). If the lessee does not allow the inspecting officer reasonable facilities for inspection or fails to comply with the directions within the specified time limit, the Competent Authority may forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit paid by the lessee or impose penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand and may cancel the lease and forfeit the security deposit."

11. The use of the word "may" suggesting conferment of

discretionary power in above provision assumes much significance.

It is manifest from the bare reading of the said provision that the

power is conferred upon the Competent Authority not only to forfeit

the whole or a part of the security deposit paid by the lessee, but may

also impose the penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand,

provided the lessee does not allow the Inspecting Officer reasonable

facilities for inspection or fails to comply with the directions within

the specified time limit. The other consequences envisaged in the

said provision pertain to cancellation of the lease and the forfeiture

of the security deposit in its entirety. The moment the statute

controls the activation of the said provision or its applicability on a

specified event or on contingencies, uncontrollable use of the said

provision, even by an Executive Officer, would be regarded as an

action beyond the conferment of the power enshrined in the said

Rules. The authorities shall not be permitted to transgress the

boundaries of the statutory provisions but have to travel within the

circumference thereof as any transgression entails such action or a

process of making a decision liable to be interfered with.

12. It is trite law that imposition of penalty is always regarded

as a penal provision and if the incidents or the contingencies have

been provided, such provision cannot be invoked unless such

incidents or the contingencies are found to exist. The penal provision

receives strict construction. The Show Cause Notice does not reveal

that the Inspecting Officer was either prevented from entering into

the leased area or beyond it nor is there any direction issued to be

complied with within a specified time and, therefore, the imposition

of penalty under Rule 33(17) of the said Rules is infirm, illegal and

in colorable exercise of the powers conferred upon the authorities. It

admits no ambiguity that if a thing is required to be done in a

particular way or on a particular contingency, anything done beyond

the same is impermissible. In view of the above, we find that the

imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 33(17) of

the said Rules cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed

and set aside.

13. It leads to an ancillary issue relating to the confiscation of

two excavators found stationed outside the quarry lease area. Before

we embark upon such issue, for completion of the record, we hasten

to add that the imposition of the royalty, the DMF and the

environmental compensation does not appear to be infirm or beyond

the conceivable powers conferred under the statute and, therefore,

we do not interfere with the said aspect.

14. Reverting to the said ancillary issue, Rule 51(3) of the said

Rules postulates the seizure of any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle

or any other things which are liable to be confiscated. It appears that

the authorities have derived a clue from the power of seizure and the

confiscation and did not adhere to the other requirements appearing

therefrom. Such seizure and the confiscation can be done on the

basis of a complaint and that too by an order of the Court, competent

to take cognizance of the offence. The said sub-rule has to be read

conjointly with sub-rule 1(iii) of Rule 51 of the said Rules which

mandates that the complaint in writing must be made before such

officer or before the Court by such officer or authority mentioned

under the clause.

15. The cumulative effect of reading the aforesaid two

provisions leads to an inescapable conclusion that the confiscation

can be made by an order of the Court on the basis of a complaint in

writing to be made by an authority or the person mentioned in the

clauses thereunder. Once the power is to be exercised by a Court, it

impliedly takes away the powers of the authorities. The moment the

manner and the mode of seeking confiscation is provided in the said

statutory provision, it is required to be strictly adhered to as any

departure or dispensation thereof has been consciously omitted in the

legislation while promulgating the said Rules.

16. The thing which is not incorporated in express or implied

terms in the statutory provisions, any addition or importation of the

words therein should be eschewed, unless the Court finds it required

in order to effectuate the working and/or applicability of the

provisions in juxtaposition with the object and the purpose of the

legislation. The moment the language used in the statutory provision

is plain, clear and simple and does not invite any external aid to

ascertain the meaning thereof, the Court shall proceed to interpret

the said provisions in such manner, so as to make it workable and

not to render otiose.

17. The moment the confiscation is made by an order of the

Court on the basis of a complaint in writing by the authorities

mentioned therein, any confiscation de hors the said provision

cannot withstand on the legal parameters and susceptible to be

interfered with. Such being the perceived interpretation of the said

provision, we find some digression from the facts pleaded by the

respective parties.

18. Our attention is drawn to the seizure list, wherefrom it

appears that the aforesaid two excavators were seized from the

possession of a person and were given in his custody/zimma with an

avowed object that it would not be used and utilized for such quarry

purposes. Though the letter issued to the Police Authorities exposits

that an action must be taken under Rule 51(3) of the Rules, but it

does not appear from the record that any such action has yet been

taken.

19. An impression is created in us from several documents

annexed to this writ petition that in the event, the petitioner pays the

amounts appearing in the table appended to the impugned Demand

Letter dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-7), there is no point of

continuing with the seizure of the said two excavators.

20. We, thus, direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,508/-

(rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eight) as demanded in the

impugned Demand Notice (Annexure-7) within seven (07) days

from date. In the event deposit is made within the time stipulated

herein, the authorities shall release the order of seizure and hand

over the possession of the two excavators to the petitioner.

21. It goes without saying that upon deposit of the said

demanded amount, the authorities will immediately take all

consequential steps required therefor within seven (07) days from

the date thereof.

22. With these observations and directions, the instant writ

petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances with no order as to

costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

S. Behera

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Feb-2026 13:02:28