Orissa High Court
Pratap Kishore Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.2902 of 2026
Pratap Kishore Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. Arnav Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
17.02.2026 Order No.
01. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayer:
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a. Allow the present writ petition and issue a writ, order, direction or declaration to the Opposite Parties to extend the quarry lease granted to the Petitioner in respect of the Nayakote Laterite Stone Quarry-A ending on 07.02.2026 for a proportionate period beyond the said date for the non-functioning of the lease due to the delay and laches of the Opposite Parties in demarcating the lease from 08.02.2021 to 15.07.2024;
b. Pass further appropriate order (s) or direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."
2. The petitioner was declared highest bidder on participation in the auction in respect of Laterite Lease in respect of "Nayakote Page 1 of 6 Laterite Stone Quarry-A" on 23.07.2020. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha, Bhubaneswar granted Environmental Clearance on 17.12.2020. Accordingly, on 08.02.2021 a long-term lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and the State Government, i.e., for a period of five years from 08.02.2021 to 01.02.2026. The petitioner received demand notices for payment of advance royalty, additional charge, DMF, EMF etc. for the first two years of the lease vide demand notice dated 12.01.2021 and 23.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.4,20,559/- each.
3. On 25.11.2022, the petitioner filed a representation to the Tahasildar, Tangi ventilating his grievances. Thereafter, the Tahasildar vide letter dated 13.01.2023 directed the R.I., Chhanagiri and the Geologist, Collectorate, Khordha to remain present on 21.01.2023 for demarcation of the stone quarry in question. Being aggrieved by non-demarcation of the lease for two years, on 07.06.2023, the petitioner filed CRLMP No.1134 of 2023 before this Court seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Khordha to provide protection to operate the stone quarry. On 12.10.2023, the Court disposed of the same granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authority. On the representation preferred by the petitioner on 19.10.2023, the Addl. District Magistrate, Khordha vide order dated 14.11.2023 directed the Tahasildar, Tangi to submit the action taken report. On 15.07.2024, the Tahasildar, Tangi issued a public notice inviting objections from all stakeholders regarding demarcation of the stone quarry.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unable to commence production at the Nayakote Laterite Stone Quarry-A for more than two years from the date of Page 2 of 6 execution of lease deed, despite having paid all statutory dues. Hence, the petitioner preferred the representations seeking extension of the mining lease period for a further period of three years beyond 07.02.2026. 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.
5. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties and conceded that the said judgment of this Court, is applicable in the fact situation of the present case.
6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties.
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 the mining activity remained closed in the circumstances not attributable to the petitioner.
8. This Court in similar circumstances 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:
"4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this Page 3 of 6 Court does not feel it apt to issue writ of mandamus to extend the tenure of lease deed as prayed for by the petitioner. 4.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 which reads 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."
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 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."
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):
"xxx xxx xxx xxx Page 4 of 6 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, 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:
"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 respondent State be also paid back to them along with something more."
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.
Page 5 of 68. 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."
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 dated 25.11.2022 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 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(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 Judge
Date: 19-Feb-2026 15:00:25
Bichi
Page 6 of 6