Dismissed

Sayed Abdul Halim v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Oct 2020WP(C)/19982/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 19982 of 2020, the Court held that a writ petition challenging a dismissal of a mining lease revival application is not maintainable as the remedy of revision under the MMDR Act is available. The petition stands disposed of with liberty to file a revision.

What did the court decide?

Disposed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file revision before revisional authority with condonation of delay.

Sayed Abdul Halim Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 19982 of 2020

¶2

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶3

07.10.2020

¶4

Mr. V. Narasingh, Advocate --For the Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA

¶6

--For the Opp.Parties (State)

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing

¶9

mode.

¶10

Heard Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionerSayed Abdul Halim challenging the order dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure-6 series) passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines Department, Odisha by which the mining lease in respect of the area in question, which was for a period of 20 (twenty) years, was lapsed with effect from 18.09.2009 under Section 4A of the Mines & Minerals Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. He has also challenged the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines Department, Government of Odisha by which the application of the petitioner for revival of the lapsed mining lease has been dismissed.

¶12

Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 under the Right to Information Act on 19.12.2019 and thereafter, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶13

Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submits that the impugned

¶14

-2-

¶15

order dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure-7) is revisable by the State Government. The petitioner may avail the remedy of revision under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the M.C. Rules, 1960.

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition directly as the same is not maintainable for the simple reason that remedy of revision is available to the petitioner against the impugned order under Annexure-7.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the revisional authority along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner may raise all his arguments as have been raised in this writ petition including the averment that under which circumstances, the petitioner could not file revision within the prescribed period of limitation. In the event such a revision is filed, the revisional authority shall do well to consider all the aspects while deciding the revision application.

¶18

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶19

(Dr.B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶20

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶21

SKJ

Sayed Abdul Halim v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Abdul Halim v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Dey Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Chandra Udgata Vs State of Odisha

Tushar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Pyari Mohan Jena Vs Collector, Puri

Harmohan Nayak Vs General Manager, Canara Bank

M/S Utkal Stone Works Vs State of Odisha