The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14955 of 2025 P. Subba Rao …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Kumar Ajit Singh, Advocate assisted by Ms. Amrita Nayak, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 24.06.2025 02. 1. The prayer for the extension and/or revival of the expired period of a mining lease, is rejected by the competent authority, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. The facts discerned from the pleadings proceeds that the mining lease was granted to the predecessor of the present petitioner, who within a short span of the commencement of the said lease expired and an application for substitution and/or incorporation of the name of the son was filed before the competent authority. The mining activities could not be continued Page 1 of 6 because of the several impediments, which were beyond the control of the petitioner. 3. Rule 26(9) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 postulates that in the event the mining activities are not conducted for a specified period, the lease would lapse automatically without any further reference. However, the proviso appended thereto bestowed right on the said lessee to make an application before the competent authority for a conscious decision to extend, revive or renew the lease provided the circumstances for its non-operation was beyond the control of the lessee. The said proviso further indicates that in the event the authority finds that because of the circumstances beyond the control of the lessee, the mining operation could not be continued, it may revive the lease either from a retrospective or a prospective date. 4. It is not in dispute that an application in this regard was filed by the petitioner and in pursuit of deciding the cause made out in the said application, the report was sought from the Collector, whether the grounds which impedes the operation of the mining activities was beyond the control of the lessee. The report Page 2 of 6 suggests that though there was Naxalite movement in the area from the beginning of 1992 but by passage of time, more particularly, on and from the year 2010, there is no such activities. 5. Obviously, the period comes within the mischief of the so- called non Naxalite activities in the said area and based upon the said report the authority rejected the said application thereby the lease granted to the petitioner to have lapsed, stood confirmed. 6. Rule 46(1) provides a right of appeal to a person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority but the proviso appended thereto conferred an additional right to file a review before the State Government within the time stipulated therein. By virtue of the said proviso, the suo motu power to review the order of the competent authority is further conferred upon the State Government. 7. Sensing that the review would be the appropriate remedy, the petitioner applied before the authority to review the order of the competent authority founded upon the subsequent disclosure of the important materials, which would impact the report submitted by the Collector based upon which the decision of the competent authority, was founded. Page 3 of 6 8. The said application for review was taken up by the authority on 24th December, 2024 and rejected the same solely on the ground that it is devoid of merit in the following:- “Therefore, the appeal petition filed is rejected being devoid of merit and order issued, vide Proceeding No.6941/SM dated 14.08.2024 is upheld.” 9. Our attention is drawn to the application for review filed by the writ petitioner annexing several documents which would impact the decision taken by the authority at the initial stage and, therefore, it was an ardent duty of the authority considering an application for review to return its finding thereupon. The importance of providing a reason in a judicial as well as a quasi- judicial dispensation is imperative. The authorities cannot reject or allow the application without providing a reason, which is one of the fundamental duties ascribed to a quasi-judicial authority while deciding the claim of the parties. 10. The recording of reasons is indispensible as the litigant has a right to know the grounds on which the claim is negated or Page 4 of 6 allowed by the authority. Apart from the same it helps the higher authority to understand the decision making process and what actually swayed the mind of the adjudicatory authority in determining the claim of the person. 11. We find that the said order dated 24th December, 2024 passed by the review authority is bereft of any reason despite the fact that the several documents impinging upon the claim as well as the determination made by the original authority were disclosed and, therefore, it was an ardent duty of the review authority to return its finding thereupon. 12. Solely on the ground that the order dated 24th December, 2024 is bereft of reason, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the review authority, who passed the impugned order to reconsider the same afresh and dispose of the same on merit within four weeks from the date of the communication of the order. 13. It goes without saying that this Court has no occasion to go into the veracity and the authenticity of the claim made by the writ petitioner and, therefore, none of the findings made hereinabove shall have any persuasive affect at the time of deciding the said Page 5 of 6 application for review. It is open to the authority to decide the same independently on the basis of the materials relied upon by the respective parties and the order shall contain the proper reasons in accordance with law. 14. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge (M.S. Raman) S.K. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Jun-2025 12:52:29 Page 6 of 6