Orissa High Court
Saumyadip Chakrabarty vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26676 of 2025
Saumyadip Chakrabarty .... Petitioner
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Sanjay Rath, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 13.11.2025 04. 1. The petitioner submitted his bid on an advertisement for
minor minerals lease dated 22.11.2015 and was adjudged as a successful bidder. Pursuant to the communication having made, the petitioner deposited the Earned Money Deposit (EMD) and the royalty but was not handed over the draft copy of the lease deed to which a representation was made to the competent authority. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore issued a letter on 11.02.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit a fresh mining plan which in fact was complied within one month therefrom and an approach was also made to the appropriate authority for granting the Page 1 of 6 environmental clearance. The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) issued a letter dated 21.05.2025 inviting the attention of the petitioner to comply certain conditions together with a further intimation that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate (opposite party No.2) shall conduct the public hearing. A further letter was issued by the SPCB on 10.07.2025 intimating the opposite party No.2 and the Sarpanch of several Grama Panchayats that the public hearing would take place on 05.08.2025 at 10 am. Despite such communication the public hearing could not be done on the said date so fixed, which is admitted by the parties before us. However, the SPCB relied upon a letter dated 04.08.2025 issued by the opposite party No.2 that the public hearing could not be conducted, rather postponed as the auction was taken 10 years before and such public hearing may attract violation of the Odisha Minor and Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules). A clarification is sought in this regard, as a result, in effect no public hearing could be done yet and the fate of the petitioner's right accrued after being declared as successful bidder remained enlarged.
2. The said SPCB came up with the counter affidavit where shelter is taken that the Collector has postponed the date of public hearing citing a ground and, therefore, the SPCB has no role to pay in Page 2 of 6 this regard. The letter dated 04.08.2025 is annexed to the counter affidavit and because of postponement of hearing it can be reasonably gathered from there that since the action was held 10 years before the date of public hearing, it may invite violation of the OMMC Rules.
3. In order to ascertain whether the grounds assigned by the opposite party No.2 for postponing the public hearing, let us examine the provisions contained in the OMMC Rules, 2016. We do not find any limitation period or a time line is provided in the said Rules that after the lapse of such period, the auction shall become automatically cancelled nor did we find any specific provision that the public hearing if not conducted within a specified time, the entire exercise would come to an end and/or seize to take effect. Rule 29 of the said Rules provides that no quarry lease for minor mineral shall be granted without approval of the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It further provides the environment clearance at the behest of the competent authority with a further rider that if the competent authority fails to obtain the environmental clearance, it would be open to the selected bidder to obtain the same before execution of the lease deed. Page 3 of 6
4. The cumulative effect of these different sub-rules of Rule 29 of OMMC Rules that the environmental clearance is imperative and mandatory for the execution of the lease deed and a right is also given both to the competent authority and the selected bidder to apply for the same. The said Rule does not contain any specified period within which the clearance has to be sought for or be granted and, therefore, the stand of the opposite party No.2 that it would violate the OMMC Rules does not appear to stand valid. However, our attention is drawn to the notification dated 14 th September, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India specifying the procedure relating to the environmental clearance which is mandatory in the sense that the quarry shall not be permitted to be done by the successful bidder unless the same is obtained. The application for environmental clearance has to pass the muster of different stages as contemplated under paragraph 6 of the said notification, which includes public consultation. What can be reasonably gathered from the cumulative effect of Rule 29 of the OMMC Rules and the said notification that the environmental clearance is mandatory and before the same is granted, the public consultation has to be strictly adhered to. The said notification provides that the public hearing shall be done in close proximity of Page 4 of 6 the site and shall be conducted by the SPCB in the specified manner and forward the proceeding to the Regulatory Authority within 45 days of the request from the applicant. It further provides that in the event the SPCB does not undertake or complete the public hearing within the specified period or convey the result of the proceeding of the public hearing within the prescribed time, the Regulatory Authority may arrange another public agency which is not subordinate to the Regulatory Authority to complete the process within further period of 45 days. It is, thus, discerned from the said provisions contained in the said notification that a time line has given for completing the public hearing by the authority mentioned therein and a right is also bestowed upon the Regulatory Authority to appoint any other agency to conduct the said hearing within a specified time provided by such agency subordinate to the original authority. It does not provide any consequence for its non-observance that in the event the same is not completed it would invite a consequence and, therefore, we do not find that there is any stipulation either in the OMMC Rules or in the said notification that in the event the public hearing is not done within 45 days, the entire auction would stand cancelled or cease to take effect. The authorities cannot travel beyond the circumference of the statutory provisions and cannot import Page 5 of 6 something which is conspicuously absent therein. We do not find any provision which would frustrate the auction process as the requirements to be followed within the specified time has been manifestly violated. We, therefore, do not find that the stand of the opposite party No.2 in the letter dated 04.08.2025 stands on the anvil of the said statutory provision and, therefore, this Court directs the opposite party No.2 to fix another date for public hearing which shall not exceed beyond 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The opposite party No.2 shall also ensure that the public hearing is conducted in a congenial and conducive environment and all adequate measures in this regard shall be ensured.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 19-Nov-2025 15:39:23Page 6 of 6