Dismissed

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Nov 2021WP(C)/2788/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the lack of provision for lease extension in OMMC Rules 2016. The Court held that rules cannot operate inconsistently with a judicial stay order. The Tahasildar was directed to extend the quarry lease tenure for the NGT stay period, subject to formalities and quantity verification.

What did the court decide?

The Tahasildar, Soro directed to extend the lease tenure for the period of the NGT stay order.

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Mining and Natural Resources | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2788 of 2020

¶3

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. Sudipto Panda, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER 23.11.2021

Order No.

Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that since the present petition is squarely covered by the order dated 31^st May 2021 in W.P.(C) No.36099 of 2020 which was disposed of by this Court, this petition may also be disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶13

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties states that there is no provision in the OMMC Rules, 2016 for extension of the lease period beyond the period mentioned in the Auction Notice read with Rule-43 (2) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. However, he does not dispute that in view of the stay order granted by the NGT, the Petitioner was prevented from operating the stone quarry in question. He further submits that in absence of

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

specific Rules or a judicial order in that regard, the Opposite Parties cannot grant an extension of the tenure of the lease of the stone quarry.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the mere absence of a specific provision in the OMMC Rules 2016 should not come in the way of the Petitioner getting an extension of the lease corresponding to the period during which under a judicial order of the NGT, he was prevented from operating the stone lease in question. The OMMC Rules, 2016 cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the effect of a judicial order of stay.

¶18

Accordingly, this Court directs the Tahasildar, Soro (Opposite Party No.4) to extend the tenure of the lease of the stone quarry in question for the period while the stay order of the NGT under Annexure-2 was in force subject to the Petitioner complying with all the formalities and subject to the further condition that Opposite Party No.4 shall verify the permitted quantity as per the approved mining plan has already been exhausted and if it has been exceeded, then Opposite Party No.4 shall pass appropriate order on that basis. The appropriate orders implementing the above direction shall be issued by the Opposite Parties not later than six weeks from today.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶23

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶24

S.K. Guin

¶25

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Mohanty 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muralidhar Patra Vs State

Sasiprava Swain Vs Saurabh Garg

President,Nagarika Vs State

Hotel Kalinga Ashok Vs State

M/S.Ashirbad Agro Pr Vs Sales Tax Officer

Mahima Manjari Swain Vs State of Odisha