Orissa High Court
Madhusudhan Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29570 of 2025
Madhusudhan Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
10.03.2026 Order No.
02. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner prays before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of appropriate direction/(s) and Writ/(s) to the Opposite Parties more particularly the Opposite Party No.7, the Mining Officer, Balasore to make amendment to the lease deed dated 21.02.2024 under Annexure-11 of the Writ Petition thereby allowing the Petitioner to operate the Sahupada-Dumuda sand quarry source upto 20.02.2029 as per the statutory framework envisaged under Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, in the interest of justice;Page 1 of 8
And may pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."
2. The petitioner being the successful bidder in connection with auction notice in respect of Sahupada-Dumuda sand quarry for a period of 05 (five) years was issued an "Intimation to Successful Bidder" in Form-F on 22.06.2020 to convey his acceptance of the terms and conditions and make the statutory deposit. Later on 25.06.2020, the Tahasildar, Remuna (opposite party No.5) refused to receive such amount, but issued Form-F to the second highest bidder and asked her to deposit the amount. The decision of the Tahasildar being challenged in W.P.(C) No.20976 of 2020, vide order dated 05.10.2020 this Court permitted the petitioner to pursue remedy before the appellate forum. In consequence thereto, the Sub-Collector, Balasore (opposite party No.4) cancelled the entire auction process and directed the Tahasildar, Remuna to proceed with fresh auction. Said decision though was carried by the second highest bidder to this Court in W.P.(C) No.1652 of 2021, said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn on 23.02.2021 with liberty to file appeal before the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore (opposite party No.3). The Collector found the petitioner successful, and by his order dated 02.12.2022 allowed him to operate the sand source for the remaining period of lease. The relevant Page 2 of 8 portion of the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in OMMC Appeal No.10/2021 by the Collector, Balasore is as follows:
"Having heard the parties and going through papers, documents, Affidavits on record in terms of provisions envisaged under Rules 16 & 18 of OMMC Rules, 2016, Respondent No.3 (Madhusudan Jena) being the highest bidder is allowed to operate the sand source namely Sahupada-Dumuda under Sahupada R.I. circle of Remune Tahasil for the remaining period of lease subject to maintenance of formalities there under. Further the amounts deposited by way of "non-refundable deposit" and the "lease money" so deposited by the Appellant on filing of representation before the Appropriate Authority is to be refunded to the Appellant.
Thus, order of learned Sub-Collector Balasore dated
24.12.2020 is set-aside and the present appeal is disallowed as per the Affidavit filed by the Appellant."
3. After undertaking statutory formalities, on 21.02.2024 the Mining Officer, Balasore executed the quarry lease agreement in Form N as prescribed under Rule 27(13) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, "the OMMC Rules, 2016") in favour of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Advocate submitted that due to circumstances beyond control of the petitioner which cannot be attributed to him, despite he emerged as successful bidder in the year, 2020, the sand source could Page 3 of 8 not be operated by him. The petitioner is aggrieved by the following covenant in the lease agreement:
"The said demised pieces of land shall be held by the lessee for a term upto dtd. 13.12.2025 from the date on which this executed deed is registered under Indian Registration Act and Odisha Registration Manual, Subject to the terms, convenants and conditions hereinafter".
4.1. He vehemently contended that such arbitrary clause required to be modified/directed to be amended inasmuch for no fault of the petitioner, the sand quarry was not allowed by the authority concerned to be operated. He, submitted that necessary direction is to be issued to the authority concerned to do the needful by appropriately modifying the term of the lease agreement dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-11) and to allow him to operate Sahupada-Dumuda sand source upto 20.02.2029.
5. Strongly opposing Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the agreement being executed inter se parties without any demur, this Court has little scope to entertain the writ petition.
6. Heard Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties-State.
7. Perused the papers available on record. It is emanating from the pleadings that the petitioner after disposal of the appeal by the Collector, Balasore, complied with the terms Page 4 of 8 of the notice dated 09.01.2023 issued by the Tahasildar, Remuna and thereby satisfied the requirements of Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2016. Vide letter dated 03.02.2024, the Mining Officer (in-Charge), Balasore instructed as follows:
"Office of the Mining Officer, Balasore Kuruda, Balasore, 756056 (E-Mail: [email protected]) Letter No.246/MM Bls, Dt.3.2.24 From Mining Officer Balasore To Madhusudan Jena, S/o. Ganeswar Jena At/P.O.: Gobindapur P.S.: Sadar District: Balasore Sub: Regarding the Lease Agreement of Sahupada Dumuda Sand Bed of Remuna Tahasil, Balasore.
With reference to the subject cited above, this is to inform you that, as per the data provided by Tahasildar, Remuna the previous lessee Smt. Kanaklata Chand signed the lease agreement on dt 14.12.20 for 5 years i.e. from 14.12.2020 to 13.12.2025.
As per the order of the collector and DM Balasore OMMC appeal no. 10/2021 "Sri Madhusudan Jena being the highest bidder is allowed to operate the sand source name Sahupada-Dumuda sand bed under Page 5 of 8 Sahupada R.1. circle of Remuna Tahasil further remaining of lease period subject to maintenance of formalities there under".
Therefore, you are hereby directed to make the lease agreement for the rest of the period i.e. up to 13.12.2025.
Yours Faithfully Mining Officer (I/C) Balasore"
8. Indubitably the fact remains that the petitioner was aware prior to execution of the agreement that the period of lease to be 13.12.2025. The petitioner consciously executed the lease agreement with the Mining Officer on 21.02.2024 with the stipulation contained in the above communication. The lease agreement was executed in terms of the Appellate Order dated 02.12.2022 of the Collector in OMMC Appeal No.10 of 2021 in which it is categorically observed that "the highest bidder is allowed to operate the sand source namely Sahupada-Dumuda under Sahupada R.I. circle of Remune Tahasil for the remaining period of lease subject to maintenance of formalities thereunder".
The petitioner having not questioned the said Appellate Order, executed the agreement with the terms contained therein which is also in consonance with the period of lease specified in the letter dated 03.02.2024. Said letter stipulated that the period of lease agreement is for the rest of the period, i.e., upto 13.12.2025. Hence, this Court is afraid that the nature of relief sought for cannot be granted.
Page 6 of 88.1. Such relief by issue of writ of mandamus to the Mining Officer to amend the lease agreement dated 21.02.2024 (Annexure-11) would be impermissible in law. The learned counsel is unable to show any provision in the OMMC Rules conferring such power on the Mining Officer to extend the period of lease.
8.2. It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a contractual obligation. In Gwalior Development Authority Vrs. Bhanu Pratap Singh, (2023) 3 SCR 498 it has been observed in the context of jurisdiction of the High Court to issue direction to amend the agreement as follows:
"18. However, the fact is that the parties sitting across the table, got the lease deed executed for 18262.89 sq. meters without demur on 29th March, 2006 and the transaction stood concluded after execution of the lease deed, which was initiated pursuant to a tender floated by the appellant on 13th March, 1997 and since the lease deed was to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, it was nowhere open to be altered or amended even by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."
8.3. Having acquiesced with such fact as reflected in the communication by the Mining Officer vide Letter dated 03.02.2024 pursuant to order passed in the appeal, after signing the lease agreement with the Mining Officer, the petitioner cannot turn around to seek for issue of writ of Page 7 of 8 mandamus against the authority concerned to extend the period of lease by amending the terms of contract. Such a recourse, if adopted, would be without authority of law. Hence this Court is not inclined to show indulgence.
8.4. At this stage, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, learned Advocate drew attention of this Court to Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, which stands as follows:
"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."
The petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedy as available to him under law in view of Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, if he is so advised.
9. This Court has already held in the forgoing paragraph(s), it has no jurisdiction to issue direction to extent/amend/ modify the terms of agreement between inter se parties. The writ petition is, thus, not entertainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary (M.S. Raman) Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Mar-2026 11:02:27 Judge Bichi Page 8 of 8