IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32657 of 2025 Suraj Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 06.01.2026 02. 1. With the prayer to grant following relilef, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to: Admit the Writ Petition; And After hearing the parties be pleased to direct the Opp. parties to extend the tenure of Lease i.e. Telsarai Sand Quarry in Bongomunda Tahsil, District: Bolangir, Odisha for a further period of 1 year 4 months & 14 days w.e.f. the date 20.12.2025 And/Or to compensate the Petitioner for the loss sustained by him for such period. And Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned Advocate submitted that the Tahasildar, Bongomunda having conducted the bidding process to grant lease for Telsarai Sand Quarry declared the petitioner successful and directed to deposit cost of mining plan and environmental clearance. It was also instructed to the petitioner to obtain “consent to operate” from the State Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Sambalpur. It is submitted that though the environmental clearance was issued in the name of Tahasildar on 17th December, 2020 by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, despite lease agreement being executed by the Tahasildar with the petitioner on 21st December, 2020, the quarry could not be allowed to be operated in absence of the environment clearance in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner under apprehension that the lease would be cancelled, made statutory deposits. Due to pandemic situation, it could not operate the quarry and it was impressed upon him by the authority concerned that the environmental clearance is required to be obtained in favour of the petitioner. On much persuasion, necessary environmental clearance could be granted in his favour vide order dated 4th May, 2022 issued by the Member Secretary, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment, Authority, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-8). 2.1. It is contended that though the lease deed was executed on 21st December, 2020 for a period of five (5) years, the petitioner, due to circumstances beyond his control, could not operate till the environmental clearance was issued in his favour vide order dated 4th May, 2022 referred to above. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to consider extension of period during which he could not operate the sand quarry due to official processual delay, i.e., 01 year 04 months and 14 days. 3. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that in absence of any provision contained in the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “OMMC Rules, 2016”) envisaging extension of tenure of the lease deed, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considered the aforesaid submissions and contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4.1. It emanates from the documents enclosed to the writ petition that the petitioner was granted environmental clearance by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment, Authority, Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 4th May, 2022 (Annexure-8), though the lease deed was executed between the Tahasildar, Bongomunda and the petitioner on 21st December, 2020 for a period of five years, commencing from 2020-21 to 2024-25 (upto 31.03.2025). 4.2. Considering the grievance of the petitioner that on account of pandemic situation during the relevant period and in absence of grant of environmental clearance in his favour, though application was made, the petitioner could not operate the quarry for certain period as mentioned above. 4.3. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of case of a similarly circumstanced person in the case of Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra Vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P. (C) No.36082 of 2020, as relied on by the counsel for the petitioner to buttress the claim of the petitioner. Said case was disposed of vide order dated 31st May, 2021 by this Court showing indulgence taking into account the circumstances beyond control of the petitioner therein. 4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this Court does not feels 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. 4.7. As abundant caution it is clarified that nothing stated above on facts be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the matter. The appropriate authority is free to take independent decision on the merit of the matter on the basis of the material placed on record before him by the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Designation: Secretary