Shantilata Jena Vs State of Odisha

1. Aggrieved by refusal to grant refund of Sairat dues, on the ground that this Court while disposing of the writ petition being WP(C) No.7945 of 2024, vide order dated 8^th April, 2024 directed the Assistant Mining Officer, Puri to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, by the Tahasildar, Pipili vide Letter No.2918, dated 29^th March, 2025 (Annexure-1) and in consequence thereto the order of the Mining Officer, Puri voicing what has been spelt out by the Tahasildar, Pipili while returning the records relating to Original Sairat Case No.06/2019-20 along with other requisites vide Letter No.322/Mines, Puri, dated 11^th June, 2025 (Annexure-2), the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in further round of litigation by way of filing the present writ petition invoking provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

The facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals that the lease agreement dated 1^st January, 2021 in respect of Patelikuda Sand Sairat at the embankment of river Bhargavi under Pipili

¶15

Page 1 of 10

¶16

Tahasil of Puri district was executed in favour of the petitioner under the provision of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”) for a period of five years commencing on 21^st December, 2020 and ending on 20^th December, 2025.

¶17

2.1. After obtaining permission/approval in pursuit of compliance of statutory requirements, after having functioning for around three months, by virtue of Letter No.2551, dated 23^rd April, 2021 the Tahasildar, Pipili stopped transportation of sand from the said Sairat. The Tahasildar, Pipili issued letter to the IIC, Pipili vide Memo No.2844, dated 4^th May, 2021 (Annexure-6) intimating that the transportation of sand from Patelikuda Sand Sairat source is treated to be unauthorized as the lease holder did not deposit yearly statutory dues for the year 2021-22.

¶18

2.2. Though the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.78,36,578/- on different dates out of total demand of Rs.85,72,638/- and requested the Mining Officer, Puri to extend the time to deposit the rest amount of Rs.7,36,060/-, which she could not deposit due to health issues, having not considered such plight, the Tahasildar, Pipili demanded the rest amount by adding interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the outstanding amount.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Tahasildar runs counter to what is required to do under Rule 33(5) of the OMMC Rules. The Tahasildar, Pipili without cancelling the lease, continue to demand arrear dues each year by adding interest 24% per annum thereupon. It is submitted

¶20

Page 2 of 10

¶21

by virtue of an amendment brought into the statute book, the Lease Case No.6/2019-2020 of the petitioner was transferred by the Tahasildar, Pipili to the Mining Officer, Puri. However, the representation dated 26^th February, 2024 of the petitioner submitted to the Mining Officer, Puri remained unattended to, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition, registered as WP(C) No.7945 of 2024, before this Court. The said writ petition stood disposed of on 8^th April, 2024 with a direction to the Assistant Mining Officer, Puri to dispose of the representation dated 26^th February, 2024 within three months from the date of order.

¶22

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that after two years from the date of direction of this Court as aforesaid, the Mining Officer, Puri by mechanical application of mind merely reiterated what was stated by the Tahasildar, Pipili in his letter dated 29^th March, 2025 and refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the pretext that the Tahasildar, Pipili held that she is not entitled to get back her money deposited towards lease of Patalikuda Sand Sairat. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing WP(C) No.17754 of 2021, which was disposed of on 5^th July, 2021 with a direction that if the petitioner deposits the entire demanded royalty amount on or before 31^st August, 2021 as per undertaking furnished by the counsel, then the Tahasildar, Pipili would ensure cooperation of the local police and the Superintendent of Police, Puri shall facilitate safe passage for transportation of sand from the said Sairat.

¶23

Page 3 of 10

¶24

3.2. It is submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the order of this Court, but could deposit a sum of Rs.26,40,000/- in the month of March, 2022 and Rs.10,00,000/- in April, 2022. Therefore, she again approached this Court in WP(C) No.14591 of 2023 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to permit her to operate the sand Sairat source so that outstanding Government dues can be liquidated. This Court vide order dated 10^th May, 2023 disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Pipili, in pursuance of which the petitioner requested the Tahasildar, Pipili through representation to allow her to operate the Patelikuda Sand Sairat and accept the arrear demanded amount on installments. Since the Tahasildar, Pipili has not eased out the grievance of the petitioner, but demanded yearwise royalty along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, the petitioner under constraint has filed this writ petition.

¶25

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties submitted that though the OMMC Rules, 2016 suffered an amendment in the year 2023, the outstanding dues towards Royalty/Dead Rent (DR), District Mineral Foundation (DMF), Environment Management Fund (EMF), Surface Rent (SR) and interest were duly assessed and demanded by the Tahasildar, Pipili as he was in seisin of the records with respect to financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23. Advance royalty for the financial year 2023-24 was also demanded, excluding surface rent and dead rent in terms of the Rules 32(2) and 32(3) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.

¶26

Page 4 of 10

¶27

4.1. Since the petitioner was reminded to deposit the arrear Government dues and intimated to appear for personal hearing scheduled on 16^th April, 2024, she did not choose to attend. However, she appeared on 9^th July, 2024 but could not produce the requisite statutory clearance for running the sand Sairat source. Nonetheless, she insisted upon refund of the sum of Rs.73,45,578/-.

¶28

4.2. Referring to stance taken in the counter affidavit, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the claim for refund has rightly been refused.

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Stateopposite parties.

¶30

On perusal of decision of Mining Officer, Puri vide letter dated 11^th June, 2025 under Annexure-2 apparently indicates germane factors are not considered by the Mining Officer, Puri, who is the competent authority in view of the OMMC Rules. It is transpired from paragraphs-4 & 5 of the said letter that the claim for refund with respect to deposit made for the year 2020-21 and 202122 vide representation dated 26^th February, 2024 of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the transfer of the sand Sairat source from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department to Steel and Mines Department by virtue of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022. It is also revealed therefrom that the Tahasildar, Pipili having raised demands towards Royalty/Dead Rent (DR), District Mineral Foundation (DMF), Environment Management Fund (EMF),

¶31

Page 5 of 10

¶32

Surface Rent (SR) and interest for the financial years 2020-21 to 2023-24, the refund claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted by him. It seems the approach of the Mining Officer, Puri is illogical, irrational and mechanical appreciation of jurisdictional fact.

¶33

6.1. The Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022, having come into force, concerned file has been transferred from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department to the Steel and Mines Department. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Pipili ceases to have power on the introduction of said amendment Rules.

¶34

6.2. It is trite that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden (in Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253) .

¶35

6.3. Said principle has been followed subsequently in very many cases; suffice it to have regard to State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358, Dhanajaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512, Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahabir Prasad and others, AIR 1999 SC 3558, Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 1921, Ram Deen Maurya Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 6 SCC 735; Deepak Agro Solution Limited Vrs. Commissioner of Customs, Maharashtra, (2008) 8 SCC 358 and Central Potteries Ltd., Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1962) SCC OnLine SC 213.

¶36

Page 6 of 10

¶37

6.4. At this juncture, reference to Rule 13 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022 may be made for better understanding of the jurisdictional fact, which reads as follows:-

¶38

“13. In the said rules, in rule 66, after sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-

¶39

“(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the amended provisions, till the new system is put in place, the existing arrangement would continue. The State Government may take necessary steps for effective transition of minor minerals from Revenue & DM Department to Steel & Mines Department.”

¶40

6.5. In Subash Chandra Nayak Vrs. Union of India, 2016 (I) OLR 922 , it has been observed as follows:

¶41

“*** the statute prescribed a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to adhered to in the same manner or not at all. The origin of the Rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Tailor, (1875) LR I Ch D 426, which was subsequently followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253(2). But the said principle has been well recognized and holds the field till today in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422, and Zuari Cement Limited v. Regional Director, Employees’ State insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and others, (2015) 7 SCC 690 and the said principles has been referred to by this Court in Manguli Behera v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No. 21999 of 2014 disposed of on 10.03.2016)” .

¶42

Similar view has also been taken in Rudra Prasad Sarangi v. State of Orissa and others, 2021 (I) OLR 844; Bamadev Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 132 (2021) CLT 927 and in Shaswata Pratika Pradhan v. State of Odisha and others, 2022 (Supp.) OLR 601 .

¶43

Page 7 of 10

¶44

6.6. It needs to be highlighted as enunciated in Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 7 SCC 748 that,

¶45

“All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot be held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. (See Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340.) However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity— it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.

¶46

***

¶47

In Rafique Bibi Vrs. Sayed Waliuddin, (2004) 1 SCC 287 explaining the distinction between null and void decree and illegal decree, this Court has said that a decree can be said to be without jurisdiction, and hence a nullity, if the court passing the decree has usurped a jurisdiction which it did not have; a mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction does not result in a nullity. The lack of jurisdiction in the court passing the decree must be patent on its face in order to enable the executing court to take cognizance of such a nullity based on want of jurisdiction. The Court further held that a distinction exists between a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction and consequently being a nullity and not executable and a decree of the court which is merely illegal or not passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. A decree suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be termed inexecutable.”

¶48

6.7. It has been laid down in Central Potteries Ltd. Nagpur Vrs. State of Maharashtra, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 213 as follows:

¶49

Page 8 of 10

¶50

“In this connection it should be remembered that there is a fundamental distinction between want of jurisdiction and irregular assumption of jurisdiction, and that whereas an order passed by an authority with respect to a matter over which it has no jurisdiction is a nullity and is open to collateral attack, an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter, but has assumed it otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, is not a nullity. It may be liable to be questioned in those very proceedings, but subject to that it is good, and not open to collateral attack.”

¶51

6.8. Perusal of impugned decisions as reflected in the letter dated 11^th June, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer, Puri, it seems that said authority has not applied his conscientious mind, but merely repeated what was spelt out by the Tahasildar, Pipili vide letter dated 29^th March, 2025.

¶52

In view of aforesaid discussion with reference to relevant provisions of the OMMC Rules and the decisions referred to supra , this Court finds that the reasons ascribed to by the Mining Officer, Puri cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The decision to refuse the refund to the petitioner vide Annexure-2 is not countenanced by plausible reason. As has already been referred to hereinabove, in terms of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Second Amendment) Rules, 2022, the Tahasildar, Pipili having transferred the record of the petitioner relating to Patelikuda Sand Sairat at the embankment of river Bhargavi under Pipili Tahasil of Puri District to the Steel and Mines Department, the Mining Officer, Puri is the competent authority to take a lawful decision on the claim for refund by the petitioner as set up by way of representation dated 26^th February, 2024.

¶53

Page 9 of 10

¶54

In consequence of aforesaid, the decision contained in letter dated 29^th March, 2025 and 11^th June, 2025, refusing refund to the petitioner is set aside. It is directed that the Mining Officer, Puri shall decide the matter afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order without being influenced by the observations made by the Tahasildar, Pipili in letter dated 29^th March, 2025 under Annexure-1. It is needless to say, in the event any adverse order is sought to be passed against the petitioner, she is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶55

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶56

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶57

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶58

MRS/Laxmikant

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Dec-2025 12:51:23

¶61

Page 10 of 10

Shantilata Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantilata Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Ch.Satpathy Vs State and Ors.

M/S Gayanaranjan Das, Jajpur Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jajpur

M/S. Laxmidhar Mohanty, Jagatsinghpur Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

M/S Aditya Enterpriser, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Abha Engineering and Construction, Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha