Dinesh Chandra Das v. Union of India & others) disposed of on
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 19767 OF 2023 M/s. Tarini Minerals, Keonjhar and another …. Petitioners Mr. Saurjya Kanta Padhi, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, Additional Government Advocate Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA & JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 28.03.2025 I.A. No. 16500 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 19767 of 2023 2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Perused the kind minutes of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice assigning the I.A. to be heard by a Division Bench where Shri Justice M.S. Raman is a member. Accordingly, the I.A. is listed before us for consideration. 3. This I.A. has been filed seeking modification of paragraphs-3 and 4 of the order dated 6th July, 2023 by which the writ petition was disposed of. 4. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that this I.A. arises out of W.P.(C) No. 19767 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 6th July, 2023 with the following direction: Page 1 of 6 “3. Mr. Naveen Kumar, learned Advocate, at the outset contended that the petitioners do not want to press the prayer No. (iii) so far as declaration of sub- rule (7) of Rule-20 of Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Rules, 2016 as substituted by way of Gazette Notification bearing No.775E dated 02.11.2021 as ultra vires of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. However, he made an innocuous prayer stating that in a case of similarly situated person, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 17450 of 2022 (Dinesh Chandra Das v. Union of India & others) disposed of on 08.12.2022, this Court has already permitted the petitioner therein to comply with the requirement and the authorities are directed to consider the renewal of lease of the petitioner therein and, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed in terms of the said order. 4. In view of the above, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17450 of 2022 and if any defect is pointed out by the State authorities, the petitioners be permitted to remove the same and thereafter, the case of the petitioners be considered in accordance with law.” It is submitted that the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 8th December, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022 (Dinesh Chandra Das –v- Union of India and others). Vide order dated 8th December, 2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction: “5. In view of such position, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to comply with the requirements, as mentioned in paragraph- 5 of the affidavit, within a period of 15 days. If the Petitioner complies with the same within the time stipulated, the authority shall consider the renewal of lease of the Petitioner in accordance with law.” Page 2 of 6 5. In the said writ petition [W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022], the State-Opposite Parties filed an additional affidavit, paragraph-5 of which reads as under: “5. That according to the above the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 ordered to file an additional affidavit in this perspective as to why the Petitioner has not been allowed to continue, when similarly situated nine persons have been extended with the benefits by withdrawing the lapsing orders and allowed to continue the mines. In view of the above the following are the submissions: a) That the Petitioner has not been able to pay the compensation amount of Rs.23,66,83,052/ demanded vide demand notice no.2335/Mines dated 04.09.2017 by Mo, Baripada towards excess production beyond the approved limit of EC for the period from 2000-01 to 2010-11. Additionally, the Petitioner has also not paid the demand amount of Rs.13,56,118/- towards MP/CTO demanded vide order No.3027/Mines dated 16.11.2017. b) The Petitioner has neither been able to obtain the statutory clearance the mining operation from the concerned authorities nor has been able to satisfy that he has taken appropriate steps to show his bonafide efforts to obtain the aforementioned clearances.” to commence 6. Subsequently, an application (I.A. No. 13605 of 2023) was filed in the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 17450 of 2022, for modification of the order dated 8th December, 2022 to the extent of substituting the words/phrase “renewal of lease” with that of “withdrawal of lapsing order of lease of the Petitioner”. This Court considering the I.A., as aforesaid, recalled the order dated 8th December, 2022 passed in the said writ petition vide order dated 19th April, 2024 and passed a fresh order disposing the writ petition on the very same day directing as under: “5. In view of such position, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to comply with the requirements, as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the affidavit, Page 3 of 6 within a period of 15 days. If the Petitioner complies with the same within the time stipulated, the authority shall consider the withdrawal of lapsing order of the lease of the Petitioner in accordance with law.” 7. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that since the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 8th December, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022, which was subsequently modified vide order dated 19th April, 2024, the final order dated 6th July, 2023 by which the present writ petition was disposed of may be recalled or in the alternative, the same may be modified to the extent of substituting the phrase “renewal of lease” with that of “withdrawal of lapsing order of the lease.” 8. Mr. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the factual position as submitted by Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate. Although he made submission on the merit of the I.A. seeking modification of the aforesaid order, but prays for an adjournment to take up-to-date instruction in the matter. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that adjournment of the matter is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as the Petitioners only seek substitution of the words/phrase “renewal of lease” with that of “withdrawal of lapsing order of the lease”, in terms of the order dated 19th April, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that order dated 8th December, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022 in terms of which the present writ petition was disposed of, has already Page 4 of 6 been recalled vide order dated 19th April, 2024 in I.A. No.13605 of 2023 and a fresh order has been passed. If the words/phrase “renewal of lease” exist in the order disposing of the present writ petition, it will create confusion and the said order cannot be given effect to. Hence, the order dated 6th July, 2023 by which the present writ petition was disposed of, is recalled and the following order is passed in the writ petition. “1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate submits that in compliance of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.17450 of 2022, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties filed an additional affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 after serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioners on the basis of which the order dated 8th December, 2022 was modified vide order dated 16th April, 2024. Paragraph-5 of the said additional affidavit states as follows: “5. That according to the above the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 ordered to file an additional affidavit in this perspective as to why the petitioner has not been allowed to continue, when similarly situated nine the benefits by persons have been extended with withdrawing the lapsing orders and allowed to continue the mines. In view of the above the following are the submissions: a) That the petitioner has not been able to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 23,66,83,052/- demanded vide demand notice no-2335/Mines dated 04.09.2017 by Mo, Baripada towards excess production beyond the approved limit of EC for the period from 2000-01 to 2010-11. Additionally, the petitioner has also not paid Page 5 of 6 the demand amount of Rs.13, 56,118/- towards MP/ CTO demanded vide order No3027/Mines dated 16.11.2017. b) The petitioner has neither been able to obtain the statutory clearance to commence the mining operation from the concerned authorities nor has been able to satisfy that he has taken appropriate steps to show his bonafide the aforementioned clearances”. to obtain efforts 4. On perusal of the statement made in paragraph-5 of the additional affidavit, it appears that the Petitioners have not complied with certain conditions for which withdrawal of lapsing order of the lease of the Petitioners has not been granted. 5. Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners undertakes that the Petitioners are willing to comply with the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit and contends that direction may be issued to the State Government to consider the case of the Petitioners once again. 6. In view of such position, this Court disposes of the writ petition permitting the Petitioners to comply with the requirements, as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the affidavit, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days. If the Petitioners comply with the same within the time stipulated, the authority shall consider the withdrawal of lapsing order of the lease of the Petitioners in accordance with law.” The I.A. and the writ petition are accordingly disposed 7. of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2025 13:28:05 bks (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 6 of 6