Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Arjun Ladha vs The State Of Odisha on 28 September, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 539/2022
M/S ARJUN LADHA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION )
Date : 28-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for following principal reliefs:
“A. Allow the present writ petition and issue writ, order or direction or declaration in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction granting restoration of mining lease period to the petitioner amounting to 9 years 7 months and 16 days (that is the period equivalent to the lost period from 15.02.2011 to 31.03.2020), in terms of principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, rule 12(1) (ff) MCR 2016 read with clause (4) of Part IX of Form K of MCR 1960 and covenants of mining lease deed; And/or Signature Not Verified B. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction thereby Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2022.09.29 14:01:19 IST Reason: directing the State Government of Odisha to do all the required formalities for restoration of the aforesaid period in the period of mining lease and consequent extension of the mining lease including execution and 2 registration of necessary instruments such as supplementary mining lease deed etc. to the same effect in favour of the petitioner in a time bound manner.” Our attention has been invited to some of the provisions of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 in support of the claim that the period of 9 years 7 months and 16 days which the petitioner had lost, must be reckoned to the advantage of the petitioner and appropriate relief be modulated in his favour.
The petition is completely misconceived. The lease having come to an end, the relief as prayed for can not be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505/2020 and SLP(C) No. 2090/2020 with Writ Petition (Civil) No.114/2014. The Registry is directed to list these matters before the appropriate Court on 17.10.2022.
(INDU MARWAH) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)