Disposed

Mahesh Prasad Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Feb 2022WP(C)/39506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition seeking extension of a quarry lease. The court relied on a prior order allowing the petitioner to apply to the authority for benefits related to the pandemic lockdown, remitting the matter to the concerned authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by referring petitioner to file an application with the concerned authority within 15 days for consideration of refund and lease extension.

Mahesh Prasad Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 39506 of 2021

¶3

Mahesh Prasad Mishra

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate Vs.

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

….. Opposite parties

¶8

Mr. T.K. Patnaik, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶12

ORDER

¶13

24.02.2022

¶14

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

¶16

Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Patnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow him to operate the quarry for a further period till the residue quantity of 1,01,000 CUM is lifted.

¶18

It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that similar matter was before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28544 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2020 with the following observation/direction:-

¶19

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was granted lease to operate the quarry for a period of five years, which was started from 19.10.2015 and expired on 18.10.2020. Therefore, after expiry of the said lease period, the same ipso facto cannot entitle the petitioner to claim further extension of 90

¶20

days. As such, it is within the domain of the authority concerned to consider the same but not by the Court. In course of hearing, it is contended that due to non-performance of the quarry for the period of 90 days owing to lockdown for which period the petitioner has already deposited certain amount, the said amount should be refunded to him. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the said question. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application claiming such benefit before the authority concerned within 15 days from today. If the petitioner files such application within the time stipulated, the authority concerned shall consider the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application.”

¶21

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the observation/direction given in the order dated 19.11.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 28544 of 2020.

¶22

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Arun

¶24

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (V. NARASINGH) JUDGE

Mahesh Prasad Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Prasad Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhabindra Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Ku.Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Shri Jagannath Steels and Power Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Pruthwiraj Swain Vs State

M/S.Lal Trades Agenc Vs State

Banshidhar Mahana Vs State of Orissa