Sibasis Sahu Vs State of Odisha

The petitioner assailed in the writ petition a notice of demand dated 20^th November, 2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Mining Officer, Rayagada instructing him to deposit the outstanding dues for the financial year 2024-25 and also a demand notice dated 28^th February, 2025 (Annexure-5) in respect of Turkaniguda sand bed for the financial year 2025-26.

¶13

Being declared as successful bidder in the tender process for Turkaniguda sand bed located at Gunupur, an agreement was executed between the Mining Officer, Rayagada and the petitioner on 8^th April, 2024 whereby and whereunder the lease of the said sand bed was granted for a terms of five years commencing from financial year 2024-25 to 2029-30 i.e., from 8^th April, 2024 to 7^th April, 2029. Having deposited an

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

amount of Rs.68,06,382/- towards royalty/dead rent and other dues, when the petitioner mobilized resources to commence the quarry operation, due to intervention of local villagers, he could not operate the said sand quarry for around one and half years. The demand notice dated 28^th February, 2025 has been issued by the Mining Officer, Rayagada directing the petitioner to deposit the amount towards royalty, additional charge, surface rent, DMF, EMF and TCS pertaining to financial year 2025-26. A further notice was issued on 20^th November, 2025 directing the petitioner to deposit the balance royalty amount and other charges along with interest relating to the financial year 202425.

¶16

It is submitted by Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (“OMMC Rules”, for short) mandates a lessee to be liable to pay royalty only for the minor minerals removed from the leased area or consumed by him during the period of lease. It is submitted that royalty can only be levied with respect to proportion of quantity of mineral extracted from the leased out area. As the quarry in question remained non-operational due to strong protest of the villagers, no sand could be extracted during the period for which the demand for deposit of royalty has been directed by the Mining Officer, Rayagada. He, therefore, urged that the Mining Officer without examining the factual scenario, mechanically issued such demand notices, which are liable to be quashed. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the view expressed

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

by this Court in the above respect as reflected in the order dated 25^th March, 2025 passed in the case of Chintamani Samal v. State of Odisha and others (WPC No.5735 of 2025) .

¶19

Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel having appeared for the State-opposite parties submitted that the view expressed in the case of Chintamani Samal (supra) applies to the present fact situation.

¶20

Perusal of the aforesaid order, it emanates that this Court having taken cognizance of Rule 33 of the OMMC Rules and other related provisions came to hold as follows:

¶21

“10. It is trite that provisions imposing liability is required to be construed strictly. Faced with the language of Rule 32 and Rule 33 as referred to above, one has to look merely at what is clearly said and when the language is unambiguous, there is no room for any intendment. It is admitted by the Mining Officer that the royalty should have been charged at the time of issue of transit pass, i.e., at the juncture of removal of mineral from the leased out area. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner did not operate the sand quarry since 2022-23, even though agreement was entered into on 24^th January, 2023. It is not unreasonable for him to seek for adjustment of royalty as has already been deposited against the liability that may arise on account of removal of sand.”

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

In view of the aforesaid conceded position, this Court is of the considered view that the demand notices dated 28^th February, 2025 (Annexure-5) and dated 20^th November, 2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Mining Officer, Rayagada in respect of Turkaniguda sand bed cannot be sustained as the event of liability as contemplated under the OMMC Rules has not yet been arisen.

¶24

Accordingly, the demand notices dated 28^th February, 2025 (Annexure-5) and dated 20^th November, 2025 (Annexure6) are quashed and set aside. The matter is now remitted to the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Rayagada for taking appropriate decision in the light of the observation made supra, keeping in view that the petitioner could not operate the aforesaid sand source for a certain period despite execution of agreement on 8^th April, 2024. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶26

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶27

(M.S. Raman)

¶28

Judge

¶29

S.K. Guin/PA Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2026 10:04:15

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Sibasis Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibasis Sahu 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

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt.,Ltd. Vs State of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Dept.,Secretariat, Bbsr

Dola Gobinda Nayak Vs State of Odisha

M/S U-Tech Service Vs State of Odisha

M/S Gm Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Kolkata Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Siba Prasad Desite Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. Ct and Gst, Rayagada