The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12578 of 2024 Narayan Sahu …. Petitioner Represented by – Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented by – Mr. Debasish Tripathy, Additional Govt. Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. MANASH RANJAN PATHAK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.11.2025 11. 1. The Writ Petition at the behest of the petitioner relates to the inaction and/or apathetic attitude of the authorities in not granting an extension of the lease period in respect of Khanjamahala Stone Quarry No.59 for the rest of the period as per the Agreement dated 4th September, 2020. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a quarry lease and an agreement was executed, but was prevented from operating the same and approached the authorities flagging an issue. 2. By virtue of the said agreement dated 4th September, 2020 the authorities decided to extend the lease for the remaining period, Page 1 of 5 subject however to the environmental clearance certificate to be submitted by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner approached the authority, but there is a complete silence on their behalf, as no correspondences were exchanged between the parties corroborating that the EC certificate was granted to the petitioner. Their appears to be a dissent amongst the different departments in relation to the authorities to grant the certificate and, ultimately on an approach being made to this Court, the orders were passed upon the authorities – the contesting opposite parties to produce the relevant documents and also to file their respective pleadings. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the authority - Opposite Party No.6 contained an averment that the entire Writ Petition is devoid of merit and there is no subsisting right accrued to the petitioner to seek the lease as claimed in the instant Writ petition. 5. However, the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 5 gives a complete different picture and/or the reflection of the decisions taken by the authority in extending the period of lease provided the steps which are required to be taken are in fact taken by the petitioner. In the said counter affidavit it is disclosed that a cluster Environment Clearance Certificate for Khanjamahala Page 2 of 5 cluster has already been approved and granted by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 16.04.2025, which imbibe within itself Quarry No.59 for which the quarry permit was granted to the petitioner. It is further disclosed that, since the approval is conditional upon the preparation and submission of the wildlife conservation plan in consultation with the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) to be duly approved by the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW), therefore individuals have to submit the application in respect of the particular stone quarry. 6. Our attention is drawn to the resolution taken by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 16.04.2025, which contained the recommendation of adopting a Cluster Clearance Certificate, but to an individual lessee subject to the specific conditions as included in Annexure-8. It contains an exhaustive provision relating to the procedures and the modalities in granting the clearance certificate, and it can be reasonably presumed that once a decision to grant the Cluster Environment Clearance Certificate has been adopted and resolved by the said authority and the quarry being a subject matter of the instant Writ Petition comes within the ambit thereof, it does not absolve the duties of the individual lessees to apply, as mandated therein. Page 3 of 5 7. The counsel for the SEIAA also submits that an individual application is required to be filed for granting the Environment Clearance Certificate to an individual and till date the same has not been submitted or pending before the said authority. 8. We do not find from the record that the petitioner in fact approached the said authority by making an individual application, but have approached the other authorities empowered to grant the lease or to extend the period on an exigencies. 9. The counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 5 also discloses the stand of the authority that in the event the EC certificate is obtained by the petitioner from the said competent authority, i.e. SEIAA, the follow up action for extension of the lease period of the petitioner shall immediately be activated. What can be reasonably gathered from the stand of the said opposite parties is that once the clearance certificate obtained and submitted to the authority, the follow up action for extension would immediately be ensured and be granted to the petitioner. 10. Since the entitlement of the petitioner to have the lease extended is recognized and crystalized subject to the submission of the certificate as aforesaid, we do not find that the apprehension encircling in the mind of the petitioner still subsists. In our opinion Page 4 of 5 the same has been taken care of and redressed, provided the petitioner obtained the EC certificate from SEIAA-Opposite Party No.6 herein. We, therefore, permit the petitioner to make an application within a week from date to the said opposite party, who shall immediately take a decision and communicate a same to the petitioner within one week from the date of the said application in terms of the Resolution taken on 16.04.2025. After this certificate, if issued by the said authority to the petitioner, the competent authorities are directed to take all steps as required for extension of the period of lease, as admitted in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 5 of the instant Writ Petition. Since the competent authority has admitted to extend the lease period, we do not make any observations thereupon, as the ultimate relief is granted on a perceived concurrence of the said competent authorities. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. Chief Justice ( Harish Tandon ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Nov-2025 20:02:50 Judge ( M.R. Pathak ) S.K. Parida / Ranjeeta Page 5 of 5