Disposed

Chittaranjan Pahi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Apr 2026WP(C)/3481/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's expired sand quarry lease could not be operated due to villagers' agitation and pending PIL. The Collector rejected his extension plea holding sand was outside Rule 8(4) OMMC Rules and relaxation power lay with Government under Rule 64. Court upheld rejection but granted liberty to make fresh representation to the Government under Rule 64 for a conscious decision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chittaranjan Pahi Vs State of Odisha — Mining and Natural Resources | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3481 of 2025

¶3

Chittaranjan Pahi

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

24.04.2026

03. 1. The order dated 12^th August, 2024 issued by the Collector,

¶17

Keonjhar is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶18

2. The petitioner was awarded a sand Sairat permission and a

¶19

lease was also executed in his favour for a period of five years, which admittedly expired on 4^th April, 2022. There was a mass agitation from the villagers which impeded the lifting of the sand from the riverbed and several representations were also made to the authorities and a Public Interest Litigation was also filed, which remained pending during such lease period.

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

3. Since the petitioner could not operate the sand Sairat for a considerable period of time because of the vehement objection by the villagers as well as the Public Interest Litigation being pending before this Court, the petitioner approached the authority for extension of the lease period taking aid of Rule 8(4) read with Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (in short “the OMMC Rules”).

¶22

4. Since the said representation remained pending, an approach was made to this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of directing the Collector to take a conscious decision thereupon. The Collector had rejected the said representation in the following:

¶23

“ I, have carefully gone through Rule, 8 of OMMC Rules, 2016 which clarified for granting periods for which prospecting license-cum-mining lease and quarry lease for the specified minor minerals whereas sand is not included under specified minor mineral and Rule 64 of OMMC Rules, 2016 is the power of Government to relax the rules in the deserving cases as deemed proper.

¶24

Specified minor minerals means all minor minerals including decorative stones other than the minor minerals listed as Serial No.1 (ii) of Schedule-II of OMMC Rules, 2016.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Sand quarry doesn’t come under the purview of Rule 8(4) of OMMC Rule, 2016 therefore this is not a fit case under the relevant rule to consider the representation of the writ petitioner for extension of lease period of Ambo-Karagola sand quarry under Hatadihi Tahasil of the district beyond the lease period granted in his favour. Hence, the representation is devoid of merit and rejected.”

¶27

5. At the very outset, we must say that so far as the applicability of Rule 8(4) of the said Rules, 2016 is concerned, it relates to “specified minor minerals” and not “sand” used for any purpose other than the industrial purpose but the power to relax any of the provision of the Rules is vested upon the State Government. The Collector has also observed that Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules vested the power into the Government and, therefore, he is not in a position to take a decision in this regard.

¶28

6. Though we do not find any illegality in the said order but once the approach is also made taking recourse to Rule 64 of the said Rules, 2016, the Collector instead of rejecting the said representation as a whole ought to have forwarded the same to the Government for taking a conscious decision thereunder.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

7. Since the order of rejection has already been made, we do not intend to resurrect the same for such limited purpose. The justice would be subserved if the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Government under Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 so that a conscious decision may be taken in this regard.

¶31

8. Hence, the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation under Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules to the Government within fortnight from date. In the event, the same is filed within the time specified hereinabove, the Government shall take a conscious decision thereupon in the facts and circumstances that may be disclosed therein within four weeks from the date of the submission of the said representation.

¶32

9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed.

¶33

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Sisira

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Apr-2026 13:57:57

Chittaranjan Pahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chittaranjan Pahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alaya Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Bisoyi Vs State of Odisha

M/S Esl Steel Ltd, Sundargarh Vs State of Odisha

Smarak Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ocl Iron and Steels Ltd., Kolkata Vs Union of India

Manish Khemmka Vs Union of India