Disposed¶28

M/S Esl Steel Ltd, Sundargarh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Apr 2026WP(C)/5294/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ESL Steel Ltd Sundargarh; demand notices; Deputy Director of Mines Koira Circle; mining lease; stoppage or restriction of mining operations; determination of lease; coercive action; Revisional Authority; statutory forum; interim direction; writ petitions disposed; W.P.(C) 5294 5295 5838 of 2026; High Court of Orissa Cuttack; Harish Tandon Chief Justice; M.S. Raman Judge; order dated 21.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Revisional Authority to take up the revisional application connected to W.P.(C) No. 5838 of 2026 within a fortnight of communication of the order and pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper; no further adjudication on W.P.(C) Nos. 5294 and 5295 of 2026, the petitioner being protected by an interim direction. ¶28

M/S Esl Steel Ltd, Sundargarh Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned demand notices issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Koira Circle are liable to be quashed and set aside, and whether the State Government should be restrained from taking coercive action, including stoppage or restriction of mining operations and/or determination of lease. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

No further adjudication is warranted at this stage in respect of W.P.(C) Nos. 5294 and 5295 of 2026, as the petitioner stands protected by an interim direction.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

W.P.(C) No. 5838 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction upon the Revisional Authority to take up the said revisional application within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order, if necessary by preponing the date in presence of both parties or their respective counsel, and to pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper if the circumstance so warrants.

¶28

Key takeaways

All the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 5294, 5295 and 5838 of 2026) filed by M/s. ESL Steel Ltd., Sundargarh challenging demand notices issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Koira Circle, with a consequential prayer to restrain the State from coercive action including stoppage or restriction of mining operations and/or determination of lease, were disposed of by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Harish Tandon, CJ and Murahari Sri Raman, J) by order dated 21.04.2026. Since the petitioner had already approached the Revisional Authority, and the revisional applications pertaining to W.P.(C) Nos. 5294 and 5295 of 2026 had been taken up on 17th March 2023 with a protective direction, no further adjudication was warranted on those two petitions. W.P.(C) No. 5838 of 2026 was disposed of with a direction to the Revisional Authority to take up the connected revisional application within a fortnight of communication of the order, if necessary by preponing the date, and to pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper. The Additional Government Advocate did not oppose the prayer, noting the Revisional Authority to be a statutory forum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos. 5294, 5295 And 5838 of 2026

¶3

M/s. ESL Steel Ltd., Sundargarh

¶4

&. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Venugopal Mahapatra, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Patnaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

&. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Additional Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON9BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

AND

¶13

HON9BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

21.04.2026

1. All these three matters are listed together to be heard

¶18

1. All these three matters are listed together to be heard analogously as the issues involved in all these matters are identical

¶19

and similar in nature.

¶20

2. The approach is made by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the impugned demand notices issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Koira Circle with consequential prayer in the form of a direction to be passed upon the State Government refraining from taking any coercive action, including stoppage or restriction of mining operations and/or determination of lease on the strength of the present demand notices.

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

3. Admittedly, the petitioner approached the Revisional Authority assailing the said demand having raised upon it and amidst the pendency of the same, filed the instant writ petitions as the Revisional Authority was protracting the litigations and was unable to take up the same. However, it is submitted by Mr. Venugopal Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that out of the aforementioned three writ petitions, the Revisional Authority has taken up the revisional application pertaining to W.P.(C) Nos.5294 and 5295 of 2026 on 17^th March 2023 and a direction has been passed, which according to the petitioner, has protected the interest of the petitioner.

¶23

4. Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel further submits that so far as the third writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.5838 of 2026 is concerned, the Revisional Authority has not taken up the same and, therefore, a direction may be passed upon the Revisional Authority to take up the connected revisional application and pass an appropriate order as it deemed fit and proper.

¶24

5. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State does not oppose the said prayer and further corroborated the stand

¶25

that the matter may be relegated to the Revisional Authority to take a

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

conscious decision as the said forum is a statutory forum provided under the statute.

¶28

6. In view of such stand having taken before us, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5838 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction upon the Revisional Authority to take up the said revisional application within fortnight from the date of communication of this order; if necessary, by preponing the date in presence of both the parties or their respective counsel and the Revisional Authority shall pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper if the circumstance so warrants.

¶29

7. So far as the other two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) Nos.5294 and 5295 of 2026 are concerned, since the petitioner is protected by an interim direction, no further adjudication is warranted at this stage.

¶30

8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of in the

¶31

above terms.

¶32

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally SignedSigned by: SUMANTA BEHERA (M.S. Raman) Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Judge Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Apr-2026 13:56:24

¶35

S. Behera

¶36

Page 3 of 3

M/S Esl Steel Ltd, Sundargarh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Esl Steel Ltd, Sundargarh 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeet Kumar Samal Vs Bhadrak Municipality

Santi Sahu Vs State of Odisha

M/S Narbheram Power and Steel Private Ltd., Kolkata Vs Union of India

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

Alaya Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Bisoyi Vs State of Odisha