[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bs Mining Corporation vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7062 of 2025
BS Mining Corporation, Keonjhar .... Petitioner
Mr. Surya Prasad Misra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ashis Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 24.03.2026
08. 1. Undisputedly, the petitioner after having adjudged as a
successful bidder in the auction conducted by the authority in terms
of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short,
"the OMMC Rules"), it deposited all the requisite amount and was
issued Form-F in its favour.
2. The Environmental Clearance was also obtained and payment
was also made towards royalty and statutory dues and as a follow-
up action, the lease deed was executed on 3rd July, 2023 for a period
of five years. The consent to operate was obtained; so also the
transit permit, which did not create any impediment in carrying on
the activities till August, 2023. An amendment was brought into the
said Rules, by virtue whereof the authority to deal with the mining
issues were taken out from the Tahasildar and vested upon the
Mining Department of the Government.
3. In order to take the administrative charge, in view of such
amendment having brought, the transit permit, which was issued by
the Tahasildar, was immediately withdrawn and/or taken away with
an object to issue fresh transit permit to the petitioner.
Subsequently, the said Mining Officer did not issue the transit
permits/pass, which created fetter into the petitioner in operating
the Mines and the approach was made from time to time in this
regard. Entire attempt in securing the transit pass remained futile,
but in the meantime, the demand notice was issued claiming
astronomical amounts for the periods 2023-24 and 2024-25.
4. It appears that the notice was issued when the petitioner raised
an objection for personal hearing and on 15th January, 2025, the
petitioner appeared and sought for an adjournment that the matter
might be fixed on 30th January, 2025. It further appears that the
petitioner was not notified as no notice was received by him as to
whether the authority has accepted the request made by the
petitioner to fix the matter on 30th January, 2025 and no order was
passed in presence of the petitioner nor was the date fixed by the
authority. It appears that on 16th January, 2025, a further notice was
issued by the authority fixing a date as requested by the petitioner,
but the said notice was never served upon the petitioner.
5. Since the parties were not ad idem on issue of the service of the
notice fixing a date for hearing on 30th January, 2025, we invited
the attention of the learned Additional Government Advocate in this
regard and called upon the authorities to disclose the mode of such
service.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State submits, on written instruction received from the concerned
officer, that the said notice dated 16th January, 2025 was sent
through an ordinary post and not by any other mode. It is further
submitted that the representative of the petitioner was also
communicated through Mobile Phone.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, however,
submits, on instruction, that had the date been known, there was no
fetter on the part of the petitioner to appear and denies the
communication to have been made either to the petitioner or its
representative.
8. In view of such dissent having perceived and bearing in mind
that at one point of time, the authorities intended to afford an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, we feel that justice
would be subserved if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of
personal hearing before the authority embarks his journey on the
peripheral of the demand raised under the provisions of the OMMC
Rules. Since the demand is raised as the petitioner did not appear
nor participate in the personal hearing, we, therefore, quash and set
aside the order dated 7th February, 2025. The matter is remitted to
the concerned authority, opposite party no.3, to decide the issue
afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. The respective learned counsels are permitted to communicate
this order to opposite party no.3 immediately. After receipt of the
order, the said authority shall fix a date of hearing and
communicate the same to the petitioner both by speed post with
acknowledgment due card as well as by WhatsApp; the number
shall be shared by the petitioner to Mr. Saswat Das, learned
Additional Government Advocate in course of this day. The next
date shall not exceed beyond fifteen days from the date of
communication of this order. The petitioner shall cooperate and
assist the officer in taking decision afresh and shall not indulge in
procrastination of the said proceeding for all time to come.
10. It is made clear that all the points raised by the petitioner in the
instant writ petition are kept open and if taken, the same shall be
decided by the authority.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all
the pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2026 18:11:25
