Recently, in a dispute raising questions over administrative authority under mining regulations, the Orissa High Court examined whether a lease cancellation order loses validity simply because it was issued by a Mining Officer holding charge of the post rather than the regular incumbent. The case centred on the interpretation of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, and whether an officer temporarily discharging duties could legally exercise powers reserved for the designated “Competent Authority.”
The controversy began when a quarry lease holder, declared the highest bidder in a government auction of sairat sources, entered into a five-year agreement with the State in December 2020. While the petitioner paid royalty and charges for the first financial year, he allegedly defaulted on statutory payments for the subsequent years. Authorities issued a demand notice, followed by reminders and two show-cause notices from the Mining Officer (In-charge), but the petitioner failed to respond. The department eventually cancelled the lease and forfeited the security deposit under the OMMC Rules.
Challenging the move before the High Court, the petitioner argued that only the “Competent Authority,” defined under the Rules as the Mining Officer of the jurisdiction, could order cancellation. Since the impugned order was issued by a Mining Officer holding charge, the petitioner contended that the decision lacked legal authority.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman rejected the challenge, observing that administrative functioning cannot come to a halt merely because the regular post holder is absent. The Court noted that the statutory scheme authorises the Mining Officer to act as the competent authority, and when the office is vacant or temporarily unoccupied, another officer entrusted with those duties can exercise the same powers.
Emphasising the need for continuity in public administration, the Bench stated, “There cannot be a vacuum in functioning of the department… once the post is vacant, the duties and powers must be exercised by a competent person in the interregnum and if such powers are exercised, it cannot invite illegality.” Finding no procedural or statutory violation in the cancellation order, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Narendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.2610 of 2026.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sailaza Nandan Das,
Advocate for the Respondent: ASC. Biswabara Dash,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
