IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17505 of 2024 P. Ramadevi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Kumar Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 18th February, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the application filed by the petitioner for prospecting license in relation to the specified minor mineral prior to the commencement of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short “the 2016 Rules”) is required to be decided on the parameters of the provisions contained under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 (in short “the 2004 Rules”) or would lapse automatically by virtue of Rule-4(12) of the 2016 Rules. 2. It is undisputed that the petitioner applied before the authorities for a prospecting license in respect of a specified minor mineral, when the 2004 Rules was in vogue. The said application was initially processed by the authorities and it was found that there have been several discrepancies as the documents, which required for consideration of the said application, were conspicuously not included. 3. Subsequently, the application was processed and/or verified and it was detected that the area under the quarry lease application was overlapping with another area coming under the Quarry Lease No.413 dated 16.07.1997 which has already been granted to another person. It was subsequently found that the application filed by the other applicants in relation to the specified quarry lease area stood rejected but subsequently, the authorities, after taking note of the facts discerned from the record, did not find any justification in the application of the petitioner in granting the prospecting license and proceeded to reject the same. 4. Since the order of rejection is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule-64(4) of the 2004 Rules, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority. The appeal was kept in a suspended animation as the Appellate Authority was not proceeding to dispose of the same, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.20468 of 2016 which was disposed of on 29.04.2022 with a direction upon the Appellate Authority to decide the said appeal within a stipulated period in accordance with law. 5. Amidst the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the 2004 Rules was superseded by the 2016 Rules and an issue was raised at the behest of the Department as to whether such appeal deserves dismissal in view of the clear stipulation given under Rule-4(12) of the 2016 Rules. 6. Before we proceed to decide the said seminal point, it would be profitable to quote Rule-4(12) and 4(13) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, which run thus: “4 (12). All applications for prospecting license and mining lease for specified minor minerals received prior to the date of commencement of these rules shall become ineligible. (13). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (12), the following applications shall remain eligible for grant of mining lease under these rules: (a) Where before the commencement of these rules, a prospecting licensee has been granted in respect of any land for any specified minor mineral, the licensee shall have the right to obtain mining lease in respect of that mineral in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the licensee, (i) has undertaken prospecting operations to establish the existence of mineral contents in such land in accordance with the provisions applicable during the period of license, (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the license, (iii) has not become ineligible for grant of mining lease, (iv) has not failed to apply for grant of mining lease within a period of three months after the expiry of prospecting license or such further period as may be extended by the State Government. Provided that for the cases covered under this clause including the pending cases, the right to obtain mining lease shall lapse on expiry of one year from the date of Commencement of the OMMC Amendment Rules’ 2023: Provided further that the holder of prospecting license whose rights lapsed under the first provision, shall be reimbursed the expenditure incurred towards prospecting operations in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government. (b) Where the State Government has communicated order (terms and conditions) to grant a mining lease before commencement of these rules, the mining lease shall be granted subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the grant order within the time stipulated in the grant order or such further time, not exceeding two years, as may be extended by the State Government. (c) In cases where right to obtain a mining lease has lapsed under clauses (a) and (b), such areas shall be put up for auction as per the provisions of this rules” 7. It is manifest from the bare reading of the language and/or the words employed under the aforementioned provisions that all the applications for prospecting license received prior to the date of commencement of these rules shall become ineligible. It can be reasonably gathered from the said provisions that any application, which is filed when the 2004 Rules was in vogue, the same shall stand ineligible, meaning thereby it will receive the natural death and no further step or action is required to be taken thereupon. Obviously, the modalities, the procedures and the mechanism in granting the prospecting license have undergone a sea-change in the 2016 Rules which are distinct and different from the procedure, the mechanism and the right emanating from the provisions contained under the 2004 Rules. Though the 2016 Rules does not contain an express provision repealing the 2004 Rules, but the preamble and the object appended to the said rules leave no obscurity in perceiving that the 2004 Rules gets effaced by virtue of repeal while enacting the 2016 Rules. 8. We are conscious of the provisions contained under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in relation to the rights, actions, things and/or deeds done under the repealed Act but it cannot be applied in an adjunct manner unless the intention of the legislators is apparent from enacting the subsequent legislation. In case of a simplicitor repeal and incorporation of a specific provision relating to ineligibility of the pending applications under the repealed rules, the intention is laudable that those applications would receive natural death and shall be effaced from the record. Precisely, for such reason, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal. 9. Mr. Malay Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought to invite the attention of this Court to the merits of the application by contending that the dispute hinges upon the area for which the prospecting license was applied for and the petitioner, being the first applicant, had acquired a right to be considered for grant of the prospecting license. 10. We are unable to countenance aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the moment the application filed under the repealed rules becomes ineligible by virtue of the subsequent rules enacted by superseding the earlier one, the question of merit on the factual matrix becomes mere academic. If the right has not accrued to the petitioner to have the prospecting license because of the fetter having put into the subsequent legislation, even if the matter is well founded on the merit, yet the relief being the ultimate destination which in the event is foreclosed, the Court is denuded of power to grant such relief. The Court cannot direct the authorities to do a thing either forbidden in law or de hors the law. Once the legislation has put an end to the pending applications on the advent of coming into force of the 2016 Rules, it is preposterous to suggest that the Court should enter into the merits on factual aspects. 11. From whatever angle the matter is looked at, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order of the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal. 12. The writ petition sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer