p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.23872 of 2025 Gayadhara Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. A. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite parties Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 22.01.2026 01. 1. The challenge is made to an order dated 16th June, 2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Nilgiri disposing of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner in relation of extraction and transportation of un-authorizedly 1479 Cubic Meter murrom. 2. Initially, a notice was issued 30th May, 2018 for penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner and also inviting to file the reply thereto. Subsequently, another notice was issued on 2nd June, 2018 where the amount of penalty is increased. The aforesaid notices were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.9821 of 2018, which was disposed of on 26th June, 2018 relegating the petitioner to exhaust the remedy available in the statute, the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”). Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the Sub-Collector, Nilgiri by filing an appeal, which was taken up from time to time until the same was dismissed on 11th February, 2020 as the petitioner did not take any step therein. The said order was further challenged in the Court of Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore by filing an OMMC p. 2 Appeal No.18 of 2020, which again came to be disposed of on 9th February, 2024 restoring the appeal filed before the Sub-Collector, Nilgiri with further direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After the matter was remanded, the Tahasildar, Nilgiri took up the matter and by order dated 16th June, 2025 dismissed the same. Instead of approaching the Second Appellate Authority as provided in the OMMC Rules, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 3. We are conscious of the settled proposition of law that there is no absolute bar in approaching the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the remedy by way of an appeal or otherwise is provided in the statute. However, the Courts have imposed self-restraint in entertaining such writ petitions and relegating the parties to exhaust the statutory remedy provided to them. It is, thus, rule of discretion than of compulsion. The Court can refuse to exercise discretion if the points raised in the writ petition are amenable to be taken up in a proceeding provided under the statute and the competence of the authority to decide the same. 3.1. There is another facet in the instant case that on an earlier occasion, the order of the Sub-Collector, Nilgiri/Tahasildar, Nilgiri was challenged before the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore by filing an appeal as provided under the OMMC Rules, but the petitioner chose to avoid such forum and is challenging the said order of the Sub-Collector, Nilgiri/Tahasildar, Nilgiri in the instant writ petition. A party cannot be permitted to choose the forum and the Courts may frown upon such attempt and refuse to entertain such writ petition by relegating the parties to avail the statutory remedy provided in the said Rules. This is one of the cases of such nature and, therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion p. 3 as we find that the right of remedy against the impugned order is provided in the statute, i.e., OMMC Rules. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: Senior Stenographer