IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27096 of 2024
Sandeep Chandak ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.15588 of 2023
Jayanti Jena ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.15589 of 2023
Jayanti Jena ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 1 of 10
W.P.(C) No.15773 of 2023
Sandeep Chandak ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.15777 of 2023
Tapan Kumar Nayak ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2023
Niranjan Rout ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 2 of 10
W.P.(C) No.21573 of 2023
M/s. Premier Rock Pvt. ..... Petitioner
Ltd., Gurgaon
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.21577 of 2023
M/s. Premier Rock Pvt. ..... Petitioner
Ltd., Gurgaon
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.24438 of 2023
Rangadhar Pradhan ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 3 of 10
W.P.(C) No.28295 of 2023
Sandeep Chandak ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.28611 of 2023
Jayanta Kumar Jena ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.34927 of 2023
Laxmipriya Prusty ..... Petitioner
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Panda,
Additional Government Advocate
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 4 of 10
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 7th February, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners in W.P.(C) no.27096 of 2024, W.P.(C) nos.15773,
15777, 21573, 21577, 24438, 28295 and 34927 of 2023. The writ
petition bearing W.P.(C) no.34927 of 2023 involves similar issue,
so it is treated as day’s list under special notice and taken up. He
submits, under challenge is revised demand for delay in execution
of lease deed, imposing enhanced component in additional charges,
from ₹129 to ₹295. He submits, counter has been filed and
contention therein is reliance upon the rule 65 in Orissa Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. The rule is reproduced below.
“65. Power to issue instructions:- The Government may
issue instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act and these rules from time to time, with a view to
remove difficulties.”
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 5 of 10
2. He submits, rule 27 provides for procedure regarding grant of
quarries. Drawing attention to sub-rule(2) he points out, there is
requirement for inviting applications in form of technical bids and
the invitation is to be uploaded in the e-auction portal by the
competent authority specifying, inter alia, minimum amount of
additional charge payable. Referring to sub-rule(15) in rule 27 he
submits, the competent authority is to indicate minimum amount of
additional charge to be quoted. That is akin to a reservation on the
additional charge to be paid. Sub-rule(15) is reproduced below.
“27. Grant of quarry lease:-(15) The minimum amount of
additional charge to be quoted shall be such as the
Competent Authority, in consultation with the Controlling
Authority, decide and specify in the notice inviting
applications for grant of quarry lease:
Provided that the minimum amount of additional
charge so fixed should not be less than 5% of the rate of
royalty.”
According to Mr. Mohanty, the enhancement sought to be imposed
cannot be said to be revised demand for delay in execution of lease
deed nor issuance of instructions to remove defects. He seeks
interference.
3. Mr. Palit, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners in W.P.(C) no.15588 of 2023, W.P.(C) no.15589 of 2023
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 6 of 10
and W.P.(C) no.17626 of 2023 and submits, also to be noticed is
sub-rule (7) and (13) in rule 27. He submits, there is nothing in the
counter to demonstrate a contention on violation of procedure
provided in said sub-rules. No difficulty arose, for issuance of
instructions which is nothing but a demand for enhancement over
and above the stated additional charge in the uploaded invitation for
applications. Mr. Dalai, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner in W.P.(C) no.28611 of 2023 and adopts above
submissions.
4. Mr. Panda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on paragraph-9 in
the counter filed against W.P.(C) no.27096 of 2024. He submits,
State’s case in all writ petitions is the same. Paragraph-9 is
reproduced below.
“9. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph
Nos.1 to 5 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that
the lease agreement in respect of the quarry in question
was executed on dtd.07.09.2022 Vide Annexure-14 to the
Writ Petition and therefore, the executive instructions
dtd.07.04.2022 issued in consonance with the Rule-65 of
the Rules, 2016 Vide Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition would
govern the lease agreement vide Annexure-14 to the Writ
Petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 7 of 10
He submits, the executive instructions were issued on 7th April,
2022 prior to execution of the lease on 7 th September, 2022. On
query made Mr. Panda submits, the lease deeds carry additional
charges as per the accepted bids. However, the instructions having
had been issued before execution of the leases, they are to be
followed by the lessees, by paying the enhanced additional charge.
It is an annual charge necessitated for purpose of enhancement of
revenue and calculated as per statutory provision.
5. We are unable to accept contentions of State regarding
issuance of instructions, which did not have any effect on the leases
executed subsequent thereto. Therefore, it is a demand for
enhancement of the additional charges to be paid by the lessees, not
provided in the lease. We have been taken through procedure in the
rules regarding inviting applications for obtaining lease on quarries,
to be uploaded in e-portal by the competent authority. We do not
want to think that the minimum additional charge that was to be
indicated in the invitation was erroneously fixed. We have not been
shown any provision that empowers the competent authority/State
to impose a higher charge on lessees, who have obtained their
leases by being highest bidder in an auction indicating reserved
amount of additional charge to be paid.
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 8 of 10
6. At this stage Mr. Panda submits, under challenge in the writ
petitions are the demand notices. Petitioners have not challenged
office order dated 16th April, 2022 constituting a District Level
Committee (DLC) to render advisory assistance to the Collector for
fixation of minimum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) and additional
charges for minor minerals sources. We see this is an administrative
order for the purpose of competent authority to obtain advice from
the DLC. Fact is, the competent authority proceeded to invite bids
before obtaining advice from the DLC. Subsequent thereto the
administration may have received the advice from the DLC
indicating there must be enhancement in the additional charges to
be paid by lessees. However, the question before us is whether in an
auction indicating a reserved value, bids made and accepted, there
can be enhancement thereafter. There is nothing provided in the
rules to show that in event in future the competent authority
obtained advice from a DLC or for that matter any other person or
body, correspondingly, effect of the advice is to be imposed on
lessees, already executed and running.
7. Mr. Panda points out from condition-4 under part-IV in the
lease deed that lessees are to pay royalty in advance and differential
amount if any on computation shall be paid by the end of first
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 9 of 10
fortnight. The demand is covered by this condition. The condition is
reproduced below.
“4. The lessee shall pay royalty in advance and differential
amount, if any on Computation shall be paid by the end of
the first fortnight of each half yearly period during the
subsistence of the lease.”
Mr. Palit submits, the differential amount can only refer to the
amount of royalty paid in advance. In event of short payment, the
differential amount is to be paid within end of first fortnight. It does
not allow for imposition of enhanced additional charge. We accept
the submission that it relates to payment of advance royalty.
8. For reasons aforesaid, impugned revised demand is set aside
and quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Jyostna/Radha
Signature Not Verified
asant Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 07-Feb-2025 18:01:00
W.P.(C) nos.27096 of 2024 and batch
Page 10 of 10
