The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO. 8589 OF 2025 …. Amarjothi Granites (India) Pvt. Limited, Berhampur, District-Ganjam Petitioner Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate being assisted by Mr. G.N. Parida, Advocate State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The innocuous prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar the representation of the Petitioner dated 30th December, 2024 filed to dispose of with a prayer to allow him to operate the lease of decorative stones for a term for which he could not operate the lease, i.e., from 22nd July, 2009 till 20th August, 2022, over and above the extended period of lease. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was granted lease of decorative stones which is minor mineral on 11th September, 1995 and the lease deed was executed on 17th January, 1996 for a period of ten years. Before expiry of the lease period, the Petitioner applied for renewal of the lease as per Rule 8(7) of the OMMC Page 1 of 4 Rules, 2004. When the application was so pending, the Mining Officer, Berhampur, Ganjam stopped issuance of transit permit on the allegation that the Petitioner had operated the lease beyond lease hold area. The Petitioner being aggrieved, filed suit before the Civil Court, which was dismissed. Ultimately, learned District Judge, Ganjam allowed the appeal in R.F.A. No.63 of 2015, vide Judgment dated 30th August, 2014 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court and held as under; “Having regard to my foregoing discussions with reference to the entire materials on record as well as of the impugned Judgment, I am of the considered view that the learned Court below failed to consider the aforesaid legal provisions laid under Rule 57 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 with regard to the status of mining/quarry lease pending consideration of the renewal application for lease filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Rules. Thus, in view of the observations made above, due to subsistence of the original lease dated 17.01.1996 vide Ext.2 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and also due to non-disposal of the original application vide Ext.4 by the defendant-respondent No.3, the plaintiff is entitled for issuance of transit permit in its favour by the said Authority……….” (emphasis supplied) 4. Thus, the Mining Officer started issuing transmit permit on 25th February, 2015. But, the Petitioner could not operate the mining lease due to want of statutory clearance. When the matter stood thus, its application for renewal was considered and it is extended for thirty years from 17th January, 1996 to 16th January 2026 vide order under Annexure-10. Since the Petitioner could not operate the lease from 2009 till the order under Annexure-10 was passed, it made a representation to the Opp. Party No.1 to extend the period and allow the Petitioner to operate the lease for the period from 16th January, 2026 till 15th February, 2039, i.e., for a Page 2 of 4 term it was prevented from operating the lease which was beyond its control. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that, while granting renewal of lease under Annexure-10, it is categorically observed as under; “And whereas, adhering the principle of natural justice, the matter was heard and it was observed: i. That the mining operation was stopped since September, 2009 because of non-issuance of the transit permit by the Mining Officer, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur on the ground that illegal extraction of minerals was done by the lessee from area outside the lease hold area. However, Hon’ble District Court discarded this charge vide order dated 30.08.2014 emphasizing on the subsistence of the original mining lease dated 17.01.1996 and non-disposal of RML application. ii. iii. iv. v. That it is evident that the act of stoppage of grant of Transit Passes/Permits was done by the State authorities on the premise that the mining was beyond the lease area. This issue of conflict has been decided in the favour of the lessee. Therefore, the very premise on the basis of which the grant of TP had been stopped has been rendered infructuous in view of the order of the Court. When the allegation of encroachment beyond the lease area has been set aside by the Court, the question of any illegal extraction of ore does not arise. After 30.08.2014, though the applicant company obtained transit permit, could not operate the mine due to lack of statutory clearances which is beyond control. It is also established that the applicant company has taken necessary steps for obtaining statutory clearance soon after the order of Hon'ble Court was passed.” Page 3 of 4 6. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is entitled to operate the lease for the period prayed for beyond 16th January, 2026. The said representation/grievance petition under Annexure-13 is still pending with the Principal Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate prays that, a decision should be taken on the said representation/grievance petition at an early date and the decision thereof should be communicated to the Petitioner. 7. Mr. Panda, learned AGA fairly concedes that the representation under Annexure -13 is still pending for consideration. He, however submits that a decision on the same shall be taken in accordance with law at an early date and at the outcome thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioner, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) the representation of the Petitioner dated 30th December, 2024 (Annexure- take a decision on to 13) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this Order and communicate the result of the same to the Petitioner forthwith. 9. Urgent certified copy of this Order be granted to the parties on proper application. Rati Ranjan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 09-May-2025 16:13:13 (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (A.C. Behera) Judge Page 4 of 4