[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prakash Chandra Routray vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 4 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20395 of 2024
Prakash Chandra Routray .... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, 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. 04.02.2026
04. 1. The petitioner in response to Tender Call Notice
having participated was declared as successful bidder
for taking out lease of Plot No.702 under Khata
No.373, measuring an area of Ac.1.198 decimals
situated at Mouza: Parichhal under Begunia Tahasil in
the district of Khordha, and issued Letter dated
20.04.2022 by Tahasildar, Begunia for deposit of
Royalty, DMF, EMF, IT, Surface Rent and D.R., total
amounting to Rs.12,72,780/- (Rupees twelve lakhs
seventy two thousand seven hundred eighty only),
which was complied with on 30.04.2022. Accordingly,
work order has been issued by said Tahasildar on
27.05.2022.
2. In order to get blasting permission to operate the
Parichhal Stone Quarry, an application was made
before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khordha
on 21.09.2022 along with copies of Consent to Operate
obtained from the State Pollution Control Board,
Odisha, Agreement with Authorized Explosive
Supplier, Explosive License, Blaster Certificate. For
consideration of such application, reports/views are
invited by the Deputy Collector, Judicial from the
Superintendent of Police, Khordha; the Regional
Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Odisha; the
Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha; and the
Tahasildar, Begunia.
3. The Tahasildar, Begunia vide letter dated 29.09.2022,
the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board,
Odisha vide letter dated 07.10.2022 expressed their
views in favour of granting permission for blasting at
Leasehold Stone Quarry. Despite the fact that the
petitioner was declared successful bidder with respect
to quarry which was put to tender and favourable
reports/views were submitted, the blasting permission
has yet not been granted; as such since 2022 the
petitioner is prevented to carry out quarry operation at
the leased out area.
3.1. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Begunia
had raised demand to the tune of Rs.14,13,180/-
(Rupees fourteen lakhs thirteen thousand one hundred
eighty only) in respect of Royalty, Additional Charges,
EMF, DMF, IT, Surface Rent and Dead Rent for the
2nd year vide Letter No.1717 dated 24.05.2023.
Responding to such demand, the petitioner filed
explanation by letter dated 03.06.2023 stating clearly
that the demand so raised is not justified as no quarry
operation could be undertaken due to non-availability
of blasting permission.
3.2. Another Letter dated 11.03.2024 was issued by the
Mining Officer (I/C) from the Office of the Deputy
Director of Mines, Khordha Circle, Khordha directing
the petitioner to deposit Rs.14,04,600/- (Rupees
fourteen lakhs four thousand six hundred) for the
financial year 2023-24. Though the petitioner has filed
replies on 12.02.2024 and 16.03.2024 stating clearly
therein that no quarry operation could be possible for
him to undertake in absence of blasting permission, the
petitioner was asked to deposit the entire amount, as
aforesaid.
4. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned Advocate for
the petitioner submitted that though the authorities-
opposite parties were conscious about status of
quarrying operation despite the work order being
issued vide letter dated 27.05.2022 for five (05) years
from the date of quarrying operation, the demands so
raised by the Tahasildar, Begunia and the Mining
Officer (I/C) from the Office of the Deputy Director of
Mines, Khordha Circle, Khordha are unwholesome,
illogical and illegal.
4.1. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government
Advocate referring to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of opposite party Nos.4 and 6, namely, Regional
Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Odisha and
Collector, Khurda, vehemently opposed for grant of
relief to the petitioner. He laid stress on the following
paragraphs asserted in the counter affidavit.
"4. *** That, after receipt of said application,
the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of
Police, Khordha, Tahasildar. Begunia, Regional
Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, Divisional Forest Officer,
Khordha and Asst. Fire Officer, Khordha with a
request to enquire into the case by visiting the
spot and to furnish specific views for grant of
blasting permission in favour of the
application/lessee vide this office letter
No.14576 Dtd. 27.09.2022. ***
In response to this office letter No. 14576 Dtd.
27.09.2022, the Superintendent of Police,
Khordha submitted his report vide letter
No.5753/DIB dtd. 18.10.2022 enclosing the
report of IIC, Begunia Police Station stating that
the applicant/petitioner was involved in Begunia
P.S Case No.218 Dtd.28.12.2016 U/s-379/34
IPC. Wherein it is also reported that, the quarry
located within one K.M of Parichhal Adivasi
Sahi which might be threat to the life and
property of the people and hence, recommended
to reject the application.
5. That for the above stated adverse
recommendation of the Superintendent of Police,
Khordha submitted vide letter No. 5753/DIB
Dtd.18.10.2022 and as the general public
residing around the alleged quarry were
objecting for operation of such quarry, blasting
permission in respect to M/s.Parichalla Stone
Quarry, Parichala was not granted in favour of
the petitioner/applicant."
4.2. It is submitted by learned Addl. Government Advocate
that though the Tahasildar, Begunia, State Pollution
Control Board and the Mining Officer have submitted
their views to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Khordha for according blasting permission in favour of
the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Khordha
recommended for refusal as the petitioner is involved
in the following cases:
"02. On verification of C/A of above named
owner/applicant, it is ascertained that he is
involved in the following cag. cases.
i. Begunia PS Case No.218 dt.28.12.2016 U/s
379/34 IPC.
ii. STF PS Case No.13 Dt.01.09.2019 u/s
379/411/467/768/471/120(B)/34 IPC/25/27
Arms Act/Sec. 3/4/5 Explosive Substance
Act./Sec.51 of OMMC Rules
iii. Jenkia PS Case No.454 Dt. 24.17.2022 U/s
147/148/294/307/506/149 IPC/25 Arms Αct/3/4
Explosive Substance Act.
The applicant has been charge sheeted in
Begunia PS case No. 218/16 and STF PS Case
No.13/19. The applicant is absconding from the
locality being involved in Jankia PS Case
No.454/22.
Since the applicant is involved in series of Cog
Cases (Mines related), the application for
blasting permission may be rejected."
4.3. Drawing attention to Order No.4169 dated 04.03.2025
passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,
Khordha vide Annexure-D/6, Mr. Debashis Tripathy,
learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit
that in view of objection raised by the Superintendent
of Police, Khordha, the blasting permission is refused
in favour of the petitioner-lessee in respect of M/s.
Parichhal Stone Quarry located at Plot No.702(P)
under Khata No.373.
4.4. Referring to the counter affidavit dated 05.04.2025
filed by the opposite party No.5-Deputy Director of
Mines, Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl.
Government Advocate advanced argument that the
petitioner in terms of Rule 32 of the Odisha Mining
Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, as amended in the
year, 2023, is required to discharge the liabilities with
respect to Royalty, Additional Charges, EMF, DMF,
IT, Surface Rent and Dead Rent on annual basis on the
Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of Minor
Minerals even though actual extraction fell short of
that quantity. It is further highlighted that in terms of
Rule 28 of the said Rules, the blasting permission
cannot be accorded in view of habitation in the vicinity
of leased out area.
5. Heard Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned
Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-
opposite parties.
6. On scrutiny of documents available on record, it is
undeniable that the Tahasildar, Begunia being
conscious of habitation, floated tender and the
petitioner was declared successful. It is also recorded
that the Tahasildar, Begunia issued work order on
27.05.2022 stating clearly that the petitioner is allowed
to operate the long term lease quarry for a period of
five (05) years with effect from May, 2022 for the
aforesaid described land. Though the Tahasildar,
Begunia; Regional Officer, State Pollution Control
Board, Bhubaneswar; District Authorized Officer,
Khordha; and Assistant Fire Officer, Khordha
submitted their views with respect to feasibility of
quarry operation by blasting in favour of the petitioner,
the Superintendent of Police, Khordha raised objection
for according blasting permission on the ground that
the petitioner was involved in certain offences at this
juncture.
6.1. It is relevant to take note of the additional affidavit
dated 16.12.2025 filed by the petitioner affirming the
facts as follows:
"11. That it is humbly submitted that in all the
aforesaid case the petitioner has already been
released on bail and all the cases are pending
before the Court below for pending
adjudication. It is also further humbly submitted
that the petitioner has also not been convicted in
any of the case. As such non issuance of blasting
permission to the petitioner for the operation of
the aforesaid stone quarry on the ground of
pendency of the criminal proceeding, is not
proper after receiving Rs.40,00,000/- dues in
pursuant to the demand notice dated 06.10.2025
by the Opp. Party No.5 for inviting the petitioner
with regard to the deposit of the said dues
towards full and final settlement."
6.2. Perusal of the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha refusing to
accord blasting permission "Basing on reports of
Superintendent of Police, Khordha", it is revealed that
the reason ascribed is solely on pendency of criminal
cases against the petitioner. For better appreciation, the
said order is extracted hereunder:
"Office of The Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha
(Judicial Section)
Order No- 4169 Dt- 04-03-2025
Basing on reports of Superintendent of Police,
Khordha it has been found that the lessee is
involved in following Cognizable Cases:-
1. Begunia PS Case No-218 Dtd 28.12.2016 U/S
379/34 IPC
II. STF PS case No-13 Dtd.01.09.2019 U/s-
379/411/467/768/471/120(B)/34 IPC/25/27 Arms
Act/Sec 3/4/5 Explosive Substance Act/Sec. 51 of
OMMC Rules.
III. Jankia PS case No-454 Dt.24.12.2022 U/s-
147/148/294/307/506/149 IPC/25 Arms Act, 3/4
Explosive Substance Act.
IV. Charge sheeted in Begunia PS case No 218/16 &
STF P.S. Case No-13/19 and reported to be
absconding from the locality being involved in
Jankia PS Case No-454/22.
Therefore, temporary blasting permission is not
accorded in favour of Prakash Chandra Rautaray.
Lessee in respect of M/s- Parichhala Stone Quarry,
Parichhala located at Plot No-702(P), Khata No-
373, (Hect-0.485/1.198 Acres).
The order shall have immediate effect.
S/d-
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha"
6.3. Sri Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government
Advocate did not draw attention of this Court to iota of
paper to demonstrate that the tender condition reflected
pendency of criminal cases would disentitle the
petitioner or bidders to be accorded blasting
permission. Rather it is asserted by way of additional
affidavit that the petitioner has been granted bail in all
the cases and it is stated by Sri Sanjib Kumar
Bhanjadeo, learned Advocate that the trial of the said
cases have not yet been culminated. There is no
counter-reply by the opposite parties in this regard.
Therefore, this court does not find the objection of the
Superintendent of Police, Khordha, who is not the
technical expert with respect to blasting permission.
On the contrary the evidence is galore on record
supported by views expressed by the Tahasildar,
Begunia; Regional Officer, State Pollution Control
Board, Bhubaneswar; District Authorized Officer,
Khordha; and Assistant Fire Officer, Khordha. as
acceded to reject the blasting permission by the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha to suggest
to accord blasting permission in favour of the
petitioner. In absence of any tender condition or
conspicuous reflection of such fact in the work order to
manifestly project that pendency of criminal cases
would not entitle the petitioner to operate the quarry by
blasting, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector has
transgressed his jurisdiction and the reason ascribed in
the Order dated 04.03.2025 is irrelevant, bereft of
plausible reason supported by cogent and germane
material. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it
becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of
Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519]. Where the fact finding
authority has acted without any evidence or upon a
view of the facts which could not reasonably be
entertained or the facts found were such that no person
acting judicially and properly instructed as to the
relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to
interfere.
6.4. The Tahasildar, Begunia being conscious about the
status of the quarry and physical location of such
quarry with eyes open has invited tender and issued
work order. Nothing is brought on record by the
learned Additional Government Advocate that the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha had the
reasons to discard the views expressed by the technical
bodies, like State Pollution Control Board,
Bhubaneswar; District Authorized Officer, Khordha;
and Assistant Fire Officer, Khordha.
6.5. Another significant fact is also highlighted for
consideration. The documents enclosed with the
additional affidavit of the petitioner reveal that the
Mining Officer-cum-DDM (In-charge), Khordha
Circle, Khordha has reflected the following facts in his
letter dated 10.12.2025:
"With reference to the subject cited above, I would like
to inform you that the Parichhala Stone Quarry,
bearing Khata No. 373, Plot No. 702, Area 1.198
Acres of Mouza: Parichhala, is a stone quarry whose
lease deed was completed on 06.05.2022 through the
Tahasildar, Begunia. The quarry was taken over from
the Tahasildar on 08.11.2023. Since the takeover, the
above quarry has not been operated up to the financial
year 2024-25.
The lessee has already deposited all pending dues,
royalty, and other applicable charges for the
financial year 2025-26 in order to operate the quarry
smoothly under Khordha District.
A WPC No. 20395 of 2024 is pending before the
Hon'ble High Court of Odisha, filed by the petitioner
himself regarding blasting permission.
There are no issues concerning the grant of Consent
to Operate for the Parichhala Stone Quarry-702
under Khordha District.
This is submitted for your kind information and
necessary action. action."
6.6. As is apparent from the above letter of the Mining
Officer, the petitioner having taken possession of the
stone quarry in question on lease on 08.11.2023 till the
end of financial year 2024-25, he was not permitted to
undertake quarrying operation. It is also pertinent to
note that the petitioner-lessee despite being not
accorded blasting permission, deposited all pending
dues with respect to Royalty and other applicable
charges for the financial year 2025-26 with expectation
of grant of permission to operate the quarry. It is
unfortunate that though the Tahasildar, Begunia issued
work order allowing the petitioner to operate the
quarry and the authorities having received the requisite
amount/dues, besides the views of technical experts,
the blasting permission is not accorded.
6.7. The contention of the learned Additional Government
Advocate that the views expressed by certain
authorities are merely recommendations; the Collector-
cum-District Magistrate is competent to decide
whether to accord blasting permission is repelled for
the reason that the Tahasildar, Begunia who has floated
the tender and issued work order and the Mining
Officer, present incumbent, has accepted the fact of
deposit of statutory dues and other charges as
demanded even though the quarry remained non-
operational.
7. This Court, for the discussions made hereinabove, has
no other view gathered from the evidence made
available on record than to observe that the suggestion
of the Superintendent of Police, Khordha could not be
acted upon ignoring or assigning any reason to discard
the opinion of other authorities. The District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha has not ascribed
any justified reason to deny the blasting permission, so
as to facilitate the petitioner, successful bidder, in the
tender floated by the Tahasildar, Begunia. The District
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha has acted
mechanically while passing the order dated 04.03.2025
based on report of the said Superintendent of Police,
Khordha, who is not shown by the learned Additional
Government Advocate to be the technical expert nor
did he cite any clause in the work order or the tender
document to suggest that pendency of criminal cases
would disentitle the petitioner to be accorded blasting
permission.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings
based on pleadings, this Court cannot countenance the
reason contained in Order dated 04.03.2025 of the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha. Hence,
the said order is set aside and the matter is remitted to
the said authority for reconsideration of the application
for grant of blasting permission in favour of the
petitioner. It is also necessary to observe that while
passing fresh order(s), the said authority shall take into
consideration the Letter dated 10.12.2025 issued by the
Mining Officer-cum-DDM (In-charge), Khordha
Circle, Khordha admitting the fact that all pending
dues towards Royalty and other applicable charges
have already deposited till the financial year 2025-26
and other material facts discussed hereinabove.
8.1. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khordha shall
take into account all the material facts into
consideration and pass appropriate order(s) with
respect to according blasting permission in respect of
the stone quarry in question, within a period of four
(04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order and communicate the decision so taken forthwith
to the petitioner.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with
the above observations and directions.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 05-Feb-2026 18:59:24
