The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 09. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16360 of 2022 Ashok Kumar Panda …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others Mr. B. K. Sharma, Advocate -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. P. P. Mohanty, AGA for State CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B. R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 23.11.2023 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P. P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 17th May, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam-Opposite Party No.2. Further, he has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to extend the period of Gangajhola Stone Quarry lease on the basis of letter dated 18th June, 2019 issued by the Tahasildar, Ghumusar under Annexure-2 and communication dated 5th June, 2018 (Annexure-1) of Opposite Party No.2. 4. Mr. Sharma has contended that the Petitioner was granted a long term quarry lease viz., Gangajhola Stone Quarry under Tahasildar, Page 1 of 5 Ghumusar, Bhanjanagar for a period of five years i.e. from 2014- 2015 to 2018-2019, but he could not be able to operate the said quarry for a period of two years although he had deposited the entire statutory dues for such operation. Therefore, he approached the authority concerned for extension of lease period. The Tahasildar, Ghumusar has recommended his case to the Sub- Collector, Bhanjanagar for extension of lease period for a period of two years i.e. upto 2020-2021. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that instead of allowing him extension for a period of 2018-2019 to 2020-2021, he has only allowed operating the said quarry for a period of six months and thereafter no extension was granted. Consequentially, the Petitioner has been put to loss, as a result of which, the present writ petition has been filed by him for grant of the aforementioned reliefs. 5. Mr. Mohanty has contended that since the long term lease period, which was granted to the Petitioner for a period of five years, has been expired in the meantime, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is contended that the prayer of the Petitioner for extension of lease period has been considered by the authority and he has been allowed to operate upto 15th April, 2021. Now, by way of this petition, he seeks further extension, which is not permissible as the period of lease has already expired long since. In view of such position, it is contended that the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is seen that admittedly, the Petitioner has been settled with long term quarry lease viz., Gangajhola Stone Quarry under Tahasildar, Ghumusar, Page 2 of 5 Bhanjanagar from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, and he has been granted the environment clearance (‘EC’ in short) from District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) on 16th April, 2016 and also consent to operate for the said source by the State Pollution Control Board by order dated 11th November, 2016. Though the lease was executed on 11th February 2014, but the same was subject to grant of EC and consent to operate by the competent authority. Thereby, even though the lease was executed on 11th February 2014, but after getting consent to operate on 11th November 2016, the Petitioner was permitted to operate the quarry and more so, the mining plan was approved by the authorized officer on 26th December, 2015 for the period from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019. Though the Petitioner has also paid the full amount of assessment for the entire period of five years including Royalty, Dead Rent and Surface Rent, but after obtaining necessary statutory clearances, the Petitioner could operate the source. The Petitioner has contended that he has suffered undue hardship as the approval of mining plan and EC are time consuming process, inasmuch as, it may take more than one year in obtaining all statutory clearances and, therefore, he is entitled to extension of lease period. On 12th May 2016, the Tahasildar issued ‘R’ Form after execution of the lease deed. The said Form is issued as a transit pass for the purpose of dispatch of minor mineral. The said Form was issued only after EC was granted by the Competent Authority. As per Rule 43 (2) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (‘OMMC Rules’ in short), the date of commencement of the period for which a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or quarry lease is granted shall be the date on which a duly executed deed is registered. Thereafter, he has allowed to operate the quarry. But, it is Page 3 of 5 contended that the Petitioner could not be able to operate the quarry for a period of five years. Therefore, he seeks for extension of lease period for another two years. Considering his grievance, the Tahasildar, Ghumusar on the basis of the application filed by the Petitioner recommended for extension of lease period for another two years to Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar, which was extended till 15th April, 2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24410 of 2020 questioning the limited extension period of quarry lease, which was disposed of by this Court on 10th December, 2020 asking the Petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation before the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam, who shall take a decision on the same in accordance with law. The Collector rejected his claim for extension as the lease period was expired and further extension in that regard was also granted to him. 7. As it appears, the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for extension of period of the lease is on account of his involvement in operating the quarry unauthorizedly. Due to unauthorized extraction of the minerals from the quarry site, he has been made liable for satisfying the demand raised by the authority and more particularly, the unauthorized operation of the quarry is well established when his tractor bearing No.OD-32-8535 had been seized and for that he has compounded by paying Rs.23,000/-. Once this factum of unauthorized operation is established by seizing the vehicle, and compounding the offence thereof and more so, the period has already been expired now, this Court is not inclined to show indulgence by directing to extend the period as claimed by the Petitioner. Page 4 of 5 8. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed. (DR. B. R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE M. Panda (M. S. RAMAN) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2023 18:17:57 Page 5 of 5