Quashed

Suvendu Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Aug 2025WP(C)/19918/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition questioning a demand order for mining royalty and penalty imposed on a person without a mining license. The Court quashed the demand order, holding that Rule 58(1) did not apply to non-license holders and no power existed under the Rules to impose a penalty.

What did the court decide?

The Letter No. 2501 dated 5th June, 2025 demanding royalty and penalty is quashed and set aside.

Suvendu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19918 of 2025

¶2

Suvendu Kumar Sahu

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate

¶5

along with Ms.Sradha Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.Sanjay Rath, Addl. Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 04.08.2025

¶13

Order No.

¶14

01.

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2. Challenge is made to the Letter No.2501 dated 5^th June, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer (I/c), Balasore directing to deposit Royalty, Additional Charges for soil, DMF, EMF and penalty aggregating to Rs.28,03,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs three thousand) under Rule 58 (1) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (“OMMC Rules”, for short).

¶17

3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is not the holder of any mining license nor a lease in his favour is executed or is a holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease. Such imposition is made on a score that the Junior Mining Officer reported that the petitioner has illegally excavated 28000 cubic metres of soil from Plot Nos.702, 703 of Khata No.392 and 319 which belongs to one Surender Kumar Rout and Rabindra Kumar Rout, both sons of Mathuri Rout. The said letter further indicates that the said officer

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

asked for production of valid documents regarding deployment of the machineries for excavation and transportation of soil but the petitioner could not produce the same. The authority thereafter proceeded to raise afore-stated demand under Rule 58 (1) of the said Rules.

¶20

4. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 of the Rules is quoted hereunder:

¶21

“58.Miscellaneous:- (1) No holder of prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit or auction purchaser shall dispatch any minerals from an area without a valid transit pass in Form-Y issued electronically by Competent Authority –

¶22

(a) the Deputy Director of Mines or Mining

¶23

Officer having jurisdiction in case of specified minor minerals; and

¶24

(b) the Competent Authority in case of minerals

¶25

other than Specified Minor Minerals.”

¶26

4.1. On a manifest reading of the language employed in the said provision, it leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit or auction purchaser shall not be permitted to despatch any mineral from an area without a valid transit pass in Form-Y issued electronically by the Competent Authority. The expression “prospecting license-cum-mining lease” is defined in Rule-2 (t) of the said Rules to mean a two stage concession granted for the purpose of undertaking prospecting operation in respect of specified minor minerals followed by mining operation over a compact area.

¶27

4.2. It is, thus, manifestly clear that sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 of the said Rules is applicable to a specified category of a person and cannot be applied and/or used against the other category of

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

persons. It is beyond cavil of doubt that the statutory provisions has to be understood in tune with the context in which it is so used and once such provision is restricted to a specified category of person, its applicability cannot be expanded to the other category of person. It is preposterous to suggest that the authorities can bring any class of a person not specified in the statutory provision within the fold thereof for raising a demand. It is not only an usurpation of the power not provided in a particular provision of the statute but also percolates a sense of nonapplication of mind. It seems that the authority proceeded in a mechanical manner and did not apply its conscientious mind whether such provision has any applicability to the facts emerged in course of appearance. The authority cannot assume power under a particular provision unless such power eminently and evidently appears from the unambiguous language used therein. Any transgression from the fold of law shall entail such decision liable to be interfered with.

¶30

4.3. Since the petitioner does not satisfy the definition of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease appearing in sub-rule (1) of Rule-58, its invocation is misconceived and beyond the conceivable limits/powers set forth therein.

¶31

5. However, the State took a plea that sub-rule (2A) of Rule 58 does not restrict to any category or a class of person. According to him, the expression “any person” is of wide import and engulf within itself all classes of persons including the specified class of persons.

¶32

5.1. We are unable to comprehend such interpretation sought to be assigned to sub-rule (2A) of Rule 58 of the said Rules. It

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

postulates that any person, who wishes to transport or remove any minerals from any place shall not be permitted to do so unless he makes an online application in Form-Y in i4MS portal complete in all respect.

¶35

5.2. Form-Y appended to the said Rule mandatorily requires the disclosure of the name of the licensee or a permit holder, and, therefore the person who neither holds such permit nor any license-cum-mining lease is executed cannot apply online as the system would not accept any defective applications. Therefore, the word “any person” is to be given a restrictive meaning to those persons who are the holder of the license or in whose favour the mining lease is executed or who satisfies the definition of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease and the person who does not come within such class is kept outside the ambit of the same.

¶36

6. No person can undertake a mining activity nor can excavate the minor minerals without the license or permission granted by the competent authority and for such reason, the sufficient safeguard is provided under Rule 51 of the said Rules.

¶37

6.1. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 51 attracts a criminal liability against the person who excavates and/or extracts or transports any minor minerals without any valid license or permission and if he does so, he is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5.00 lakhs or with both.

¶38

6.2. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 51 appears to have applicability in the instant case where the authorities are empowered to impose

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

rent, royalty or tax or the price of the minerals if disposed of but does not include the powers to impose penalty.

¶41

6.3. We have not been taken to any other provision of the said Rules provided for any imposition of penalty, and, therefore, we find that the authority have acted beyond the powers so conferred by imposing a penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs, which in fact, a fine to be imposed by a Criminal Court, in the event a proceeding is initiated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 51 of the said Rules.

¶42

7. Since we find that the authority proceeded under Rule 58 (1) of the said Rules, which is neither applicable in the present factual matrix, nor we find any powers having conferred upon the authority to impose penalty, the said demand made through the Letter No.2501 dated 5^th June, 2025 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶43

8. Accordingly, the said Letter No.2501 dated 5^th June, 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the authority to take steps as permissible in law, in the event, the violation of the said Rules is still continuing or found to exist.

¶44

9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 05-Aug-2025 17:55:41 Bichi

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Suvendu Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvendu Kumar Sahu 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

Barendra Nandi @ Barendra Kumar Nandi Vs State of Odisha

Tamanna Patanaik Vs Engineer in Chief, Works Dept., Odisha, Bbsr

M/S Hotel Silver Moon, Sambalpur Vs State of Odisha

Bhaja Gobinda Routray Vs State of Odisha

Babula Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

M/S Care Security and Allied Services, Bbsr Vs State of Orissa