p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27440 of 2025 Dillip Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate 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: 20th February, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. We are not unmindful nor oblivion of the rampant illegal mining activities across the country and whenever any action is taken by the authorities, approach is made to the Court assailing their actions on the perceived arbitrariness, non-adherence of the p. 2 provisions of law and above all, the exercise of powers beyond the conferment under the statutory provisions. 2. A public spirited person highlighted such issues by filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the apex Court took serious note of the same and delivered a judgment on 2nd August, 2017 in Common Cause v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499. An argument was advanced before the said Constitution Bench at the behest of the mining operators that illegal mining cannot be presumed nor can be said in this regard, if the mining activities are within the geographical limits of a mining lease area. 3. The word "any land" appearing under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, ‘the Act’) came up for consideration before the Bench and the same has been interpreted in unequivocal words that the violation of any terms and conditions of the provisions of law or the mining plan, even within the leased area, comes within the ambit of said expressions. It leads to an inescapable conclusion that Section 21(5) of the said Act is not only restricted to illegal mining activities p. 3 beyond the peripheral of the leased area but also engulfed within itself any violation within the leased area. 4. The present case is one of the examples where the authorities found not only the quarry activities having undertaken by the petitioner outside the quarry limits/area but also the construction of a road across the river impeding the natural flow of the water. Further, two excavators were found stationed outside the quarry lease area, which the authorities presumed to have been employed for quarrying beyond the leased area. 5. Resultantly, a show cause was issued upon the petitioner which was duly replied to. The petitioner tacitly admitted the allegations made in the said show cause except that mere positioning of two excavators outside the leased area does not tantamount to the illegal quarry activities as those were kept for safety purposes. So far as the construction of road is concerned, the petitioner took a stand that since the villagers were protesting the vehicular movements from the road and preventing the petitioner to load and transport sand, for which the permission has been granted, the temporary road p. 4 was constructed for an easy access to the leased area and after receipt of the said notice, the same has been abandoned. 6. The authorities, after taking into account such stand taken by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the same is not satisfactory and proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) under Rule 33(17) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, ‘the Rules’) and also imposed the royalty, the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.31,508/- (rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eight). It further appears from the said order that the petitioner was directed to submit the tax invoices/bills of the seized two excavators for taking further action towards the realization of the penalty in terms of a Notification No.9238/SM, Bhubaneswar, dated 25.10.2024. 7. The petitioner has challenged the said order primarily on the ground that the authorities have acted in gross violation of the provisions contained under Rule 33(17) of the Rules, as the incidents encompassing such activation of the process are eminently and conspicuously absent. It is further stated that mere stationing of two p. 5 excavators outside the leased area, which does not appear to be in operation at the time of the inspection, does not ipso facto tantamount to a violation of any terms and conditions of the Rules. Without abandoning such explanation, it is sought to be contended that subsequently the said excavators have been given in custody of the Police, taking shelter under sub-rule (3) of Rule 51 of the said Rules which is illegal and violative of the said provision per se. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State took a plea that on a surprise spot inspection by the team, certain deficiencies and/or violations were noticed, which are vividly reflected in the Show Cause Notice and the aforementioned two excavators were confiscated/seized with an intent to be used and were kept under the custody/zimma of the person from whose custody it was so recovered. It is, thus, submitted that so far as the letter relied upon by the petitioner for invocation of Rule 51(3) of the said Rules is concerned, it is only the intimation to the concerned Police Officer to take action in terms of the said provisions and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner does not appear to be correct. On the imposition of the penalty, it is submitted that the said p. 6 provision attracts the imposition up to the maximum limit of Rs.50,000/-, which cannot be said to be infirm and/or illegal. 9. On the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions, the issues emanating therefrom pertain to the invocation of the provisions contained under Rule 33(17) of the Rules while imposing a penalty. An ancillary issue has also cropped up in relation to the confiscation of said two excavators, which were found stationed outside the quarry lease area. 10. Taking the first point and before we embark our journey in determining the stands taken by the respective parties, it would be relevant to quote Rule 33(17) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, which runs thus: “33. *** (17). If the lessee does not allow the inspecting officer reasonable facilities for inspection or fails to comply with the directions within the specified time limit, the Competent Authority may forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit paid by the lessee or impose penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand and may cancel the lease and forfeit the security deposit.” p. 7 11. The use of the word “may” suggesting conferment of discretionary power in above provision assumes much significance. It is manifest from the bare reading of the said provision that the power is conferred upon the Competent Authority not only to forfeit the whole or a part of the security deposit paid by the lessee, but may also impose the penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand, provided the lessee does not allow the Inspecting Officer reasonable facilities for inspection or fails to comply with the directions within the specified time limit. The other consequences envisaged in the said provision pertain to cancellation of the lease and the forfeiture of the security deposit in its entirety. The moment the statute controls the activation of the said provision or its applicability on a specified event or on contingencies, uncontrollable use of the said provision, even by an Executive Officer, would be regarded as an action beyond the conferment of the power enshrined in the said Rules. The authorities shall not be permitted to transgress the boundaries of the statutory provisions but have to travel within the circumference thereof as any transgression entails such action or a process of making a decision liable to be interfered with. Page 8 of 12 12. It is trite law that imposition of penalty is always regarded as a penal provision and if the incidents or the contingencies have been provided, such provision cannot be invoked unless such incidents or the contingencies are found to exist. The penal provision receives strict construction. The Show Cause Notice does not reveal that the Inspecting Officer was either prevented from entering into the leased area or beyond it nor is there any direction issued to be complied with within a specified time and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under Rule 33(17) of the said Rules is infirm, illegal and in colorable exercise of the powers conferred upon the authorities. It admits no ambiguity that if a thing is required to be done in a particular way or on a particular contingency, anything done beyond the same is impermissible. In view of the above, we find that the imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 33(17) of the said Rules cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. It leads to an ancillary issue relating to the confiscation of two excavators found stationed outside the quarry lease area. Before we embark upon such issue, for completion of the record, we hasten to add that the imposition of the royalty, the DMF and the p. 9 environmental compensation does not appear to be infirm or beyond the conceivable powers conferred under the statute and, therefore, we do not interfere with the said aspect. 14. Reverting to the said ancillary issue, Rule 51(3) of the said Rules postulates the seizure of any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things which are liable to be confiscated. It appears that the authorities have derived a clue from the power of seizure and the confiscation and did not adhere to the other requirements appearing therefrom. Such seizure and the confiscation can be done on the basis of a complaint and that too by an order of the Court, competent to take cognizance of the offence. The said sub-rule has to be read conjointly with sub-rule 1(iii) of Rule 51 of the said Rules which mandates that the complaint in writing must be made before such officer or before the Court by such officer or authority mentioned under the clause. 15. The cumulative effect of reading the aforesaid two provisions leads to an inescapable conclusion that the confiscation can be made by an order of the Court on the basis of a complaint in writing to be made by an authority or the person mentioned in the p. 10 clauses thereunder. Once the power is to be exercised by a Court, it impliedly takes away the powers of the authorities. The moment the manner and the mode of seeking confiscation is provided in the said statutory provision, it is required to be strictly adhered to as any departure or dispensation thereof has been consciously omitted in the legislation while promulgating the said Rules. 16. The thing which is not incorporated in express or implied terms in the statutory provisions, any addition or importation of the words therein should be eschewed, unless the Court finds it required in order to effectuate the working and/or applicability of the provisions in juxtaposition with the object and the purpose of the legislation. The moment the language used in the statutory provision is plain, clear and simple and does not invite any external aid to ascertain the meaning thereof, the Court shall proceed to interpret the said provisions in such manner, so as to make it workable and not to render otiose. 17. The moment the confiscation is made by an order of the Court on the basis of a complaint in writing by the authorities mentioned therein, any confiscation de hors the said provision p. 11 cannot withstand on the legal parameters and susceptible to be interfered with. Such being the perceived interpretation of the said provision, we find some digression from the facts pleaded by the respective parties. 18. Our attention is drawn to the seizure list, wherefrom it appears that the aforesaid two excavators were seized from the possession of a person and were given in his custody/zimma with an avowed object that it would not be used and utilized for such quarry purposes. Though the letter issued to the Police Authorities exposits that an action must be taken under Rule 51(3) of the Rules, but it does not appear from the record that any such action has yet been taken. 19. An impression is created in us from several documents annexed to this writ petition that in the event, the petitioner pays the amounts appearing in the table appended to the impugned Demand Letter dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure-7), there is no point of continuing with the seizure of the said two excavators. 20. We, thus, direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,508/- (rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eight) as demanded in the p. 12 impugned Demand Notice (Annexure-7) within seven (07) days from date. In the event deposit is made within the time stipulated herein, the authorities shall release the order of seizure and hand over the possession of the two excavators to the petitioner. 21. It goes without saying that upon deposit of the said demanded amount, the authorities will immediately take all consequential steps required therefor within seven (07) days from the date thereof. 22. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer