Review of dismissal of a writ petition seeking permission to run a sand quarry and refund of royalty after lease expiry. The Court held no error apparent on the face of the record existed; the unchallenged deficiency notice barred relief. Review petition dismissed.
None granted; review application dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 144 of 2024
Sudhir Kumar Harichandan
…. Petitioner
Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sushree Raj Rajeswari, Advocate
-versus-
…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties
Mr. Sanjay Rath, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No.
05.12.2025
1. This review application is filed by the petitioner seeking for
review the order dated 8th May, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.11159 of
2024 by a coordinate division Bench of this Court in which one of
the Members of the present Bench (M.S. Raman, J.) was there by which the said writ petition was dismissed, solely on the ground that it is devoid of merit.
2. The instant review application contains the averments relating to an error apparent on the face of the record and also nonconsideration of two documents which falls part of the said writ
Page 1 of 5
petition. The fact emerged from the record has succinctly been jotted down in the said order by the coordinate Bench and the reliefs claimed therein. The said writ petition was filed containing three reliefs; firstly, non-consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner; secondly, the petitioner should be allowed to run the quarry; and thirdly, he should also be permitted to get the refund of the royalty amount paid for the year 2023-24 along with the statutory deposit.
3. The division Bench, after considering the facts emanating from the record and the submissions so advanced, found that the period of lease for the sand quarry came to an end on 24th April, 2024. A communication was made on 10th August, 2023 by the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Panposh Sub-division, Sundargarh informing the petitioner that he has not submitted certain statutory documents to the Tahasildar, Rourkela and also the annual and quarterly returns as per Rule 33(15) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 from the month of April, 2023 onwards, unless that deficiency is removed, the petitioner is estopped from continuing with the mining activities until further orders.
Page 2 of 5
4. The coordinate division Bench, after taking note of the said communication, arrived at a definite conclusion that the deficiency has not been removed and the lease period has expired by efflux of time and since the petitioner is also estopped from operating the sand quarry, there is no justification in extending any such reliefs to the petitioner.
5. The tenet of the judgment inculcates a sense in us that the said letter dated 10th August, 2023 appears to have created a brindle in granting the relief as claimed in the said writ petition and having not challenged the same before the appropriate forum, such reliefs cannot be extended and/or granted to the petitioner. The consideration of other materials which may not be germane to the cause of action or the intrinsic issue which stares at the face of the petitioner cannot lead to an error apparent on the face of the record.
6. The Court in unequivocal terms held that since the said letter dated 10th August, 2023 which creates a fetter in extending any such reliefs having not challenged before the Court of law, it would be preposterous to grant any such reliefs. While considering an application for review of an order/judgment passed by the Court, the
Page 3 of 5
care and caution should be made as such forum is not for revisitation, rehearing and/or rewriting of the judgment. The review jurisdiction is exercised within a limited compass, more particularly, the grounds enumerated in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the principles akin thereto.
7. The error must be patent and if the same is required to be deciphered from a logical interpretation or a conclusion to be drawn from the voluminous document, the Court should not exercise such review jurisdiction. It is only a patent error which does not require any deep enquiry but on the face of the record appears to be so, the Court shall review its own order as the error cannot be allowed to permeate into the records for all time to come. Even it is founded upon a strong legal maxim, " actus curiae neminem gravabit ", meaning thereby, the act of the Court shall not cause any prejudice to the litigant. Once the Court has committed an error, which can be deciphered from the record, it is solemn duty of the Court to rectify such error in pursuit of extending justice to the litigant.
8. From a meaningful reading of the order, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the instant
Page 4 of 5
review petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2025 15:30:24
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the dismissal of the writ petition warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudhir Kumar Harichandan
State of Odisha and others
Harish Tandon
M.S. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
