M/S ARUNI STONE CRUSHER AND TRANSPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAJPUR v. STATE OF ODISHA
WP(C)/34056/2025 · 2026-01-06
Harish Tandon Cj, Murahari Sri Raman
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2322 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2322 (ORI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.34056 of 2025
M/s. Aruni Stone Crusher and Transport Services Private Limited and another …. Petitioners
Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite parties
Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
ORDER 06.01.2026
01.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
2. In order to execute works entrusted by the East Coast Railways, Khurda Road an application, dated 31.07.2020, was filed for grant of quarry permit by the petitioner. The Environment Clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and mining plan could be received from the authorities concerned by the petitioner on 19.12.2020 and 16.07.2021 respectively. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Gondia vide Order dated 24.08.2021 in Touzi Misc. Case No.98 of 2020-21 allowed the application and granted quarry permit and directed the petitioner to deposit Government dues as required under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.
2.1. Even though there was delay in according necessary permits by the competent authorities, despite no fault can be attributed to the petitioner, a demand to the tune of Rs.27,24,836/- towards p. 2 royalty, EMF, DMF, TCS, Surface Rent and Dead Rent was made by the Tahasildar.
2.2. In order to execute the subsequent works entrusted by the Railways by contracts dated 17.06.2025, 09.07.2025 and 04.08.2025, an application dated 12.08.2025 was submitted to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal to allow the petitioner to deposit aforesaid demanded amount.
2.3. Though considerable period has been elapsed, the authority concerned has not yet taken decision to enable the petitioner to deposit said amount as demanded by the Tahasidar so that quarry permit can be granted in its favour.
2.4. Sri Pravat Kumar Muduli, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner has come up before this Court with limited grievance that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal for early
consideration and disposal of the representation dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-5) so as to enable the petitioner to execute the works entrusted by the East Coast Railways, Khurda Road smoothly, or else the business of the petitioner would suffer irreparably.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation dated 12.08.2025 stated to be pending before the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal-opposite party no.4, can be considered, if it is not disposed of as yet.
4. It is found from the record that East Coast Railways has issued contracts for supply of ballasts as stated above and the petitioner by application dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-5) addressed to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal sought permission to deposit the amount as demanded by the Tahasidar so that it can operate the p. 3 quarry inasmuch as environment clearance has already been issued in favour of the petitioner for five years.
4.1. Having taken note of contents of the petition and the documents enclosed thereto, it is perceived that no benefit would enure to either of the parties by keeping the writ petition pending. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal-opposite party No.4 to take a decision on the representation dated 12.08.2025 vide Annexure-5, if not disposed of in the meanwhile, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner at liberty to communicate this order to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal-opposite party No.4. The decision taken in this regard be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
5. For abundant precaution, we hereby made it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the representation filed before the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal-opposite party No.4. Therefore, none of the observation be construed as opinion in this regard.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer