Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

“ The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other further writ and direct to extend the tenure of Lease i.e. Kotagarh Stone Quarry-1, Ranapur Tahasil, Dist.-Nayagarh, Odisha under Annexure-2 for a further period of 1 year w.e.f 31.03.2026. And/or to compensate the petitioner for loss sustained by him for such period within a stipulated period, which may fixed by this Hon'ble court.

¶18

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶19

2. The petitioner, being successful bidder on participation in the auction in respect of Kotagarh Stone Quarry, Kotagarh, Tahasil: Ranpur in the district of Nayagarh on 07.10.2020, upon receipt of

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

NOC from the Forest Department on 12.03.2025, executed a lease agreement with the State Government , on 07.06.2021 for a period of five years from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2026. The petitioner has received the transit pass from the Tahasildar, Ranapur on 27.11.2021.

¶22

3. On 08.05.2025, the petitioner submitted an application to the Mining Officer- cum -Competent Authority, Minor Mineral, Nayagarh (opposite party No.4) for extension of period of lease for lifting of pending material since 2023-24, but the same is pending till date for consideration.

¶23

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after execution of the lease agreement the petitioner could not immediately lift the quarry for the reason beyond his control inasmuch as certain legal paraphernalia were to be completed. The petitioner submitted a representation seeking extension of the period of lease for a further period of one year with effect from 31.03.2026. He placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.12.2025 rendered in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025.

¶24

5. Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed such contention of the petitioner and submitted that in absence of any specific rules in this regard, there cannot be extension of period of lease.

¶25

6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties.

¶26

7. As is apparent from the record that the petitioner beseeches issue of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to extend the period of lease for the period which he could not carry on activity.

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

8. This Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra) desisted in compelling the opposite parties to extend the period of lease as sought for by the petitioner in absence of any express provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. This Court in the case of Suraj Agrawal Vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026 considering the plight of the petitioner therein for not being able to operate the quarry due to circumstances beyond his control observed as follows:

¶29

“4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this Court does not feel it apt to issue writ of mandamus to extend the tenure of lease deed as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶30

4.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 which reads as follows:

¶31

“64. Power of the Government to relax the rules.— The Government may, in the interest of mineral development, relax any of the provisions of these rules in deserving cases in such manner as they deem proper.”

¶32

4.6. In view of the above rule conferring power on the Government to consider deserving case for relaxing the provisions of the OMMC Rules, it may be apposite for the petitioner to approach the Government for doing the needful to enable him to avail benefit of extension as prayed for in the writ petition. This Court, therefore, disposes of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, within a period of two weeks from date, as undertaken by the counsel for the petitioner. In the event such

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

representation/grievance petition is submitted to the appropriate authority by the petitioner within the said period, the authority concerned shall consider the grievance of the petitioner pragmatically within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of filing of such representation and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner forthwith.”

¶35

9. However, this Court appreciating the fact that the petitioner could not operate the quarry due to reasons beyond his control cannot be blamed for breach of any terms and conditions made following observation in Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra) :

¶36

“xxx xxx xxx xxx 7.5. ***It was all along the stand of the State in the said report that the prayer for extension and/or renewal of a period in which the order of the NGT was operative cannot be granted in absence of any statutory Rules or the policy having taken in this regard and in pursuit of determining the same, the apex Court [Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 93], in unequivocal terms held that if such a deprivation is shown, which cannot be attributed to the conduct of a mining leaseholder, the law permits the refund of the security deposit and the advanced royalty deposited by him in the following:

¶37

“43. We, thus, find that the appropriate course of action to be adopted in this case cannot be to extend the lease for the obstructed period but to direct that the security deposit, if not already refunded, should be refunded and the amount deposited by the appellants/leaseholders as advance royalties to the

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

respondent State be also paid back to them along with something more.”

¶40

7.6. A distinction can be drawn between an involuntary act and a voluntary act. In the event, the lessee or the lessor has committed a fault or committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease or the statutory provisions, the equity does not come to play. The position would have been different when neither of the contracting parties is at fault, but the deprivation is by virtue of an interdict created by an order of the NGT, such involuntary act cannot be equated with the voluntary act nor the principles governing such situation should be blurred.

¶41

8. As indicated hereinabove, we have noticed that in some of the cases, the Government have taken a decision on the representation of the mining leaseholder to extend the period and, therefore, we direct the authorities to consider the said prayer independently without being swayed by the observations made hereinabove. In the event, the authorities declined to extend the period or renew the lease, the security deposit and the advance royalty paid by the petitioner shall be refunded within two weeks from the said decision with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the deposit till the payment thereof.”

¶42

10. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2025 seeking extension of lease period for which he could not operate within two weeks without being influenced by any of the observation(s) made hereinabove. In the event, the authority concerned declines to

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

extend the period or renew the lease, the security deposit and the advance royalty paid by the petitioner shall be refunded within a period of two weeks from the decision so taken with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment thereof.

¶45

11. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶47

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶48

Aswini

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 19-Feb-2026 14:37:54

¶51

Page 6 of 6

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo 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

M/S. Crushaders Tech Solution Llp, Khandagiri, Khurda Vs Superintendent GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II Division

M/S Pd Agarwal, Angul Vs State Tax Officer State GST Department, Angul

Champalal Panaka Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Cuttack Odisha

Sugriba Dehury Vs State of Odisha

Janak Ram Patel Vs State of Odisha

Ramakrishna Padhy Vs State of Odisha