W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 1 of 35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31548 of 2025 Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya and others … ... Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and others ... … Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA W.P.(C) No.31551 of 2025 Nirmala Pandya and others … ... Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and others ... … Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025 Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya and others … ... Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha and others ... … Opp. Parties W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 2 of 35 Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dates of Hearing:22.01.2026, 19.03.2026, 23.04.2026, 11.05.2026, 12.05.2026 & 13.05.2026 Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. 1. All the writ applications involve common questions of law arising out of similar set of facts, are taken up together and have been heard at length. W.P. (C) No.31548 of 2025 has been filed by four petitioners challenging the Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 initiated before the Certificate Officer by the department of Mining, Govt. of Odisha for recovery of mining dues under the Odisha Public Demands Recovery (OPDR) Act and the warrant of sale dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure-10) issued under the said Act. The prayer made in the writ petition is reproduced herein: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings starting from determination/confirmation of demand amount vide order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and 11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 3 of 35 warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated 17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10; B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased lessees without substitution and notice as void and non-est in law; C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. W.P.(C) No.31551 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the self-same Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 as well as the warrant of sale. Prayer made in the writ petition is reproduced herein: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings starting from determination/confirmation of demand amount vide order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and 11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated 17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10; B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased lessees without substitution and notice as void and non-est in law; C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 and the amount of demand vide orders dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-7), 11.04.2025 (Annexure-8) and warrant of sale by orders dated 06.09.2025 and 17.09.2025 (Annexure-9 & W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 4 of 35 10) under the OPDR Act. The prayer made in the writ petition is reproduced herein: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings starting from determination/confirmation of demand amount vide order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and 11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated 17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10; B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased lessees without substitution and notice as void and non-est in law; C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The brief facts and the proceedings involving the parties leading to filing of the writ petition. 4. The orders impugned in the writ applications are identical; the brief facts leading to the present Writ Applications are: Certificate Case No.30/2018 has been initiated by the mining authority before the Certificate Officer. Demand raised by the mining authority relates to the demand notice dated 02.09.2017 issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle demanding sum of Rs.86,41,20,698/-(Rupees Eighty Six Crore Forty One Lakh Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight) as the ‘compensation price’ U/s.21(5) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957. W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 5 of 35 4.1 On 20.07.2018 notices were issued U/s.6 of the OPDR Act by the Certificate Authority as the Certificate Case No.30/2018 was initiated before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate-cum-Certificate Authority, Keonjhar. Before the Certificate authority Sri Drevendra Prasad Hirjee Pandya (D.P.H. Pandya) appeared and filed vakalatnama represented through his learned Advocate. Sri D.P.H. Pandya filed his preliminary show cause affidavit on 24.01.2018 indicating that the certificate debtor mentioned in the Certificate Case who is the noticee had passed away since 07.02.1989, the demand notice that was issued by the mining authority does not name any partner or any legal heirs. 4.2 The contention raised was that the certificate proceeding was initiated against a person, mentioning his name in the notice who had by then passed away almost twenty nine years back. 4.3 Thereafter before the Certificate Officer, the certificate holder/Deputy Director of Mines appeared and stated that ‘H.G. Pandya and others’ is a partnership firm of ten partners. 4.4 As stated by the petitioners in the writ petition Sri D.P. H. Pandya was instructed by the Certificate Officer to inform all the partners. To substantiate his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order sheet maintained in the certificate proceeding. It is further stated & submitted that no notice was ever issued to any of W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 6 of 35 the partners of the firm nor any notice was issued to legal heirs of the deceased. 5. Apparently, after the judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014: Common Cause1 on 02.08.2017, the demand notice was issued on 02.09.2017. 6. The impugned Annexure-7 to the writ application is order dated 06.07.2019 passed in Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 by the Collector, Keonjhar. The said order is reproduced herein (the underlined portions are considered by this Court for the purpose of adjudication): “The Certificate Debtor is present through his learned Advocate but has taken no steps to deposit certificate amount worth Rs.92,66,21,483/- in spite of several opportunities given to him for this purpose. It is seen that H.G. Pandya and others is a partnership firm and there are ten partners who are well conversant and fully aware that they have to deposit the above amount towards compensation u/s.21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 for production of mine without E.C./Excess production of mine without adequate E.C. This Company is still exist consisting of 10 No. of inherited partners. Hence Certificate amount worth Rs.92,66,21,483/- is hereby confirmed. Last and final opportunity is provided to the partners of H.G. Pandya and others (Partnership firm) to deposit the entire certificate amount before the next date positively, failing which warrant of attachment of property and sale of property shall be issued thereafter.” 7. Annexure-8 to the writ application under challenge is the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Certificate Case No.30 1 (2017) 9 SCC 499 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 7 of 35 of 2018, which is reproduced herein (the underlined portions are considered by this Court and deliberated upon): “The case is taken up today. Verified the case record. Seen that, the hearing of the case was fixed to Dt.18.04.2020. Both parties were absent. The list of legal heirs of H.G. Pandya is received from Deputy Director Mines, Joda Circle, Keonjhar. Hence it is substituted the CDr. By his wife Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya and others as detailed below: 1.Sri Devendraprasad H. Pandya S/o Late Hirjee Dhanjee Pandya 2.Smt. Bhanumati H. Pandya W/o Late Hariprasad H Pandya 3. Nita Kumari H. Pandya D/o Late Hariprasad H Pandya 4.Kumari Gayatri H. Pandya D/o Late Hariprasad H Pandya 5.Tushar Kumar H. Pandya S/o. Late Hariprasad H Pandya 6. Sri Nirmal Kumar H. Pandya S/o.late Hariprasad H Pandya 7. Smt. Nirmal Kumar H. Pandya S/o Late Hariprasad H Pandya Sl No 1 to 6 All are from At/Po/Ps-Barbil, Dist- Keonjhar, Odisha 8. Smt. Pia Pandya, W/o Late Hargovind Pandya 9.Kumari Reshmi Pandya, D/o Late Hargovind Pandya Sl No 07 and 8 (At:91, Park Road, Po-Jamsedpur, Dist- Singhbhum, Jharkhand) Issue notice to the CDr. In Form-3 to file show cause by the next date fixed for hearing towards realization of Certificate amount. Ask. CHr and Govt. Pleader, Keonjhar to be present during hearing of the case on the next date positively failing which action will be taken as per law.” (sic) W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 8 of 35 8. Annexure-9 under challenge is another order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in Certificate Case No.30 of 2018. “The case is taken up today. Verified the case record. It is seen that the matter was earlier fixed for hearing on 16.08.2025, which could not be held due to mass leave of the Revenue Ministerial Staff of Odisha from Dt.11.08.2025 to 25.09.2025. Further, it is also perused that, the Certificate amount of Rs.92,66,21,483/- (Rupees Ninety-Two Crore Sixty-Six Lakh Twenty-One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Three only) was confirmed on 06.07.2019 in presence of the learned advocate for the Certificate Debtor, The Certificate Debtor has been given sufficient opportunity to deposit the said amount, but not steps have been taken by them till date. On 01.02.2020, the DDM, Joda was instructed to submit the list of movable and Immovable properties along with details of Bank Accounts of each partner of the Certificate Debtor for initiation of warrant of attachment and sale proceedings. Accordingly, the DDM, Joda submitted the landed property list of the partners of the Certificate Debtor. Despite lapse of several dates fixed for hearing, neither the Certificate Debtor nor his partners have taken any steps for deposit of the Certificate amount. In view of the above, Issue warrant for sale property of CDr for realization of the Certificate amount at earliest.” 9. Annexure-10 to the writ petition under challenge is the warrant of sale of property in the statutory Form-10 as provided in Rule 24 of the OPDR Act, 1962, the office letter issued by the Collector dated 17.09.2025, which is scanned and reproduced in the next page: W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 9 of 35 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 10 of 35 10. The impugned letter at Annexure-10 gives the list of properties in the name of Smt. Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya the petitioner No.1 that would be auctioned for realization of the amount due. All the annexures 7 to 9 indicated above are same/identical in all the writ applications. Annexure-10 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 11 of 35 relates to the property of a individual noticee in the OPDR proceeding. 11. W.P.(C) No.31548 of 2025 is taken up as the lead case by referring to the pleadings, facts and issues pleaded therein by the petitioners and the opposite parties in response. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Palit along with Ms. A. Pradhan has been heard extensively on 22.01.2026 and 23.04.2026. The learned Advocate Mr. D.N. Lenka, Additional Government Advocate has been heard extensively on 19.03.2026, 23.04.2026, 11.05.2026 and 12.05.2026. 12. I.A. No.23242 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31548 of 2025, I.A. No.23245 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31551 of 2025 and I.A. No.23249 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025 have been filed by State-opposite party for vacation of interim orders which were passed earlier in all the Writ Applications when notices were issued to the opposite parties by the Co-ordinate Bench . Direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. arising out of ‘Common Cause’ All the I.A.(s) have been filed by the OP/State enclosing copy of the order dated 10.12.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014. The said Miscellaneous Application was filed, arising out of final judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 in W.P.(C) W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 12 of 35 No.114 of 2014: Common Cause v. Union of India and others (supra). By the said order the Hon’ble Supreme Court have directed thus: “1. We are informed that several writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos.31548, 31551, 31554 of 2025 and W.P.(C) Nos.9264, 9263 and 12358 of 2024 are pending before the high Court, wherein orders passed in recovery proceedings have been challenged and stay obtained. 2. Since public revenue to a substantial extent is involved, we grant liberty to the State of Odisha to move an application before the Chief Justice of High Court of Odisha by 19th December, 2025, with a request to assign all such writ petitions to a dedicated Bench for final disposal by the end of March, 2026. 3. In the event, the Bench is disabled from deciding the writ petitions finally by 31st March, 2026, at least, the prayers made by the State of Odisha for vacation/alteration/modification of such interim orders of stay may be considered and decided by the Bench. 4. We also observe that in such of the cases where either there is no stay granted by the High Court or any other appropriate Court, the State of Odisha shall proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the outstanding dues. 5. Further status report shall be filed on or before 02.04.2026. 6. Re-list the Miscellaneous Application and the connected matters in the second week of April, 2026.” 13. Taking note of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matters have been listed and are taken up by this Bench specially constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice by order dated 20.01.2026 in the administrative side. W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 13 of 35 Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners 14. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners’ that all the writ petitions i.e.: W.P. (C) No.31548 of 2025, W.P. (C) No.31551 of 2025 and W.P. (C) No.31554 of 2025 invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the demand of ‘mining dues’ determined U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act as well as the ‘recovery proceedings’ initiated by the mining authority resorting to the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, as the petitioners contend: violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to fair procedure/reasonable opportunity before they are saddled with civil consequences; violation of fundamental right to equal treatment before law, right to procedural fairness in the proceedings initiated against them and their right against arbitrariness. 15. Submissions are that the petitioners were not given any opportunity: no prior notice was given before ascertaining/determining the demand(s) made by the Mining authority U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. The petitioners were not substituted in the pending proceeding as the legal heirs of the past/earlier lease holders and no notice was issued to them; rather without any notice they have been proceeded against by the mining authority. There is no notice of substitution to substitute the petitioners as legal heirs for the demands to be raised W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 14 of 35 against them and the demand notices issued by the Department of Mines were not served on them. It is submitted that such action of the authority is violative of the right of the petitioners to pre-decisional hearing in matters involving civil consequence and their right to defend against demand of revenue/fine/compulsory exaction by the State, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 16. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the power of attorney (POA) executed in 2010 as well as 2012 both, are for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the State regarding renewal of the mining lease. The POAs cannot be interpreted to be anything more than that is reflected in the power of attorney itself. 17. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the power of attorney (marked as Annexure-D/4 i.e. annexed to the reply to the rejoinder filed by the State), the contents thereof are reproduced: “KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that, we, “JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES”, (previously known as – ‘Hargovind Pandya & Others’), having its head office at- Gua, P.O./P.S.- Gua, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, and Branch office at- Barbil, p.s.- Barbil, Dist.-Keonjhar, and at –Jajang, p.s.-Joda, Dist.- Keonjhar, Odisha, represented by its partners- 1) Mrs. Pia Pandya … 2) Miss Rashmi Pandya … 3) Miss Payal Pandya … 4) Smt. Nirmalakanti Prasad Pandya … 5) Smt. Bhanumati Hari Prasad Pandya … 6) Kumari Nita Hariprasad Pandya … 7) Tusar Hariprasad Hirji Pandya W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 15 of 35 8) Nirmal Kumar Hariprasad Hirji Pandya … 9) Kumari Gayatri Hariprasad Hirji Pandya …, do hereby constitute, nominate and appoint to one Shri Devendra Prasad Hirji Pandya … …, who is one of the party/partner of the above noted firm as would be true and lawful attorney holder for us and on our behalf, to do any or all of the following acts, deeds and things :-... He places emphasis on the words ‘for us and on our behalf’ (underlined above) to contend that the POA cannot be construed, as suggested by learned AGA for opposite party-State, to enable the POA holder to ‘receive notice’ for ‘firm’ or ‘partners’ in a proceeding U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act or a proceeding under the OPDR Act which are initiated much after the POAs were executed and anyhow not contemplated in the POAs. 18. The learned Sr. Advocate places emphasis on the contents of the power of attorney dated 11.04.2012 to submit that it does not authorize the POA to do any of the Acts as argued on behalf of opposite parties, other than those specified at internal page-5, which is reproduced herein: “1) To appear before competent Mining authority/Deptt., I.B.M. authority, concerned D.D.M., Mining office, Forest Deptt., Sales tax and/or income tax Deptt., Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and/or any other authority/office of Govt. (State & Central) and to deals all official dealing/correspondence in such office in intending to obtaining any Permission, Mining Lease, renewal of Mining Lease, and other Licences, sales tax clearance, Mining dues clearance certificate and/or any other permission, Licence, approval etc. for and on our behalf. To W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 16 of 35 2) To sign, and swear affidavit, writ petition, Vakalatnama, any kind of petition, documents and/or all other necessary documents, papers etc. and to file them before such competent office, authority including the aforesaid office/deptt. i.e. Mining authority, office, I.B.M., Forest Deptt., Sales tax, income tax deptt., Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Mines & Steel Deptt., Govt. of India etc. in intending to obtaining/renewal of Mining Lease, any other approval, permission, clearance etc. respectively for and on our behalf. 3) To deals all official correspondence, communication in such office of State and Central Government for the aforesaid facts and purposes as per requirement for and on our behalf. 4. To take back any documents, permission, renewal of Mining Lease, permission, licence, sales tax, clearance certificate, income tax up to date returns file, MDCC, clearance from forest Deptt., and/or all such requirement/documents/permission/License etc. for and on our behalf in intending to business relation and necessity for and on behalf of said JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES. 5) To appoint my advocate, pleader and/or Legal practitioners and to compound any case as pending against the said above named firm and/or as arise in future. 6) To represent us before such office, authority, Court, competent authority/Deptt. of Govt. (State & Central as and when required for the said facts and purposes. GENERALLY TO DO ALL ACTS, deeds and things shall and will be done, executed & performed by our attorney holder, as we were done, executed & performed by us, if we were personally present so.” IT IS FURTHER DOES HEREBY declared that, our attorney holder will be done, executed & performed all such lawful acts, deeds and things as per requirement for the business relation of said above named firm- i.e. Jajang Iron & Manganese Mines, under & by virtue of this power of Attorney. W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 17 of 35 IT IS FURTHER DOES HEREBY declared that, As we hereby authorized & empowered to the attorney holder above named, the said attorney holder – Devendra Prasad Hirji Pandya will, execute & perform and cause to be done, executed and performed all such acts, deeds and things in intending to obtaining/renewal of Mining Lease, forest clearance, any permission/licence from Mining & Steel authority, Govt. of India, Sales tax, tax clearance, income tax return file up to date, approval from any other authority, I.B.M. and /or any other such competent authority of State & Central Govt., concerned D.D.M., Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar etc. in connection to business relation and requirement of the said above named firm i.e. JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES.” 19. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that none of covenants reproduced above, contained in the power of attorney, would indicate that the nine persons giving power of attorney had waived their right to be issued and receive notice by the mining authority before the authority determines the dues U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act and saddles the demand of money on the lessees nor it can be interpreted that the necessity of giving notice to all the nine individuals who are lessees and are ‘partners’ in the firm can be by-passed. It is emphasized by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the power of attorney holder was never given the power to receive notice on behalf of the partnership firm or the individual lessees those formed the partnership firm. W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 18 of 35 20. The learned Sr. Advocate relies on the covenant at paragraph-7 of the lease deed indicating notices, to argue that the lessees never had waived their respective rights to receive notice. Said paragrpah-7 is reproduced herein: “7. Every notice by these presents required to be given to lessees shall be given in writing to such person resident on the said lands as the lessees may appoint for the purpose of receiving such notices and if there shall have been no such appointment then every such notice shall be sent to the lessees by registered post addressed to the lessees at the address recorded in this lease or at such other address in India as the lessees may from time to time in writing to the State Government designate for the receipt of notices and every such service shall be deemed to be proper and valid service upon the lessees and shall not be questioned or challenged by them.” Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties 21. In response to the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners regarding sufficiency of notice before determination of the demand raised by demand notice dated 02.09.2017, that the notices were not issued to them by the Deputy Director Mines, Joda Circle, it is contended by the learned AGA that notices have been issued to the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the firm/all the lessees, therefore, the notice has to be treated to be sufficient. He refers to the lease deed in Form ‘K’ dated 03.02.1995 (Annexure-C/3 to the additional affidavit by the opposite parties) to submit that lease deed has been signed by the constituted attorney-Kantiprasad H. Pandya W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 19 of 35 as power of attorney holder of Hargovind Pandya and others, for all the lessees; on behalf of the Governor of the State of Odisha, the Collector, Keonjhar has signed the deed. He refers to Annexure-D/4 to the reply to the rejoinder filed by the State to show Sri Debendra Prasad Hirji Pandya has signed on behalf of the lessees. He submits that sufficiency of notice on the lessees is achieved by serving the notice upon PoA holder Sri D.P.H. Pandya. 22. To support his contentions regarding the implications of power of attorney being executed by the lessees, the learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & others v. Basant Nahata2 and Nagubai Ammal & others v. B.Shama Rao & others3. 23. On being asked regarding the interpretation of covenants of POA in the context of Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932 the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there cannot be any two opinions regarding interpretation of Section 4 but he relies on Ashutosh v. State of Rajasthan and others4 from which, paragraphs-12 and 13 are relied upon by him and are reproduced below: “12. Section 24 is based on the principle that as a partner stands as an agent in relation to the firm, a notice to the agent is tantamount to the principles and 2 AIR 2005 SC 3401 3 AIR 1956 SC 593 4 (2005) 7 SCC 308 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 20 of 35 vice versa. As a general rule, notice to a principal is notice to all his agents; and notice to an agent of matters connected with his agency is notice to his principal. 13. Under Section 25, the liability of the partners is joint and several. It is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the debt from any one or more of the partners. Each partner shall be liable as if the debt of the firm has been incurred on his personal liability.” 24. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State with much emphasis that the State has entered into a lease agreement with one Sri Kanta Prasad Pandya by lease deed dated 03.02.1995. He relies on annexure to additional affidavit (Annexure-C/3) filed by the opposite party-State through the Deputy Director of Mines. The lease deed reflects thus: “FORM K MODEL FORM OF MINING LEASE (see rule 31) THIS INDENTURE made this 3rd day of February, 1995, between the Governor of Orissa, the President of India (hereinafter referred to as the “State Government” which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include the successors and assigns) of the one party and (1)Shri Kantiprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirjee Dhanjee Pandya, aged about 54 years, (2)Shri Devendraprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirji Dhanji Pandya aged about 37 years, (3) Smt. Bhanumati H. Pandya, Widow of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 51 years, (4) Nita Kumari H. Pandya, Daughter of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 28 years, (5) Kumari Gayatri H. Pandya, Daughter of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 15 years, (6) Shri Tushar Kumar H. Pandya, Son of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 26 years, (7) Shri Nirmal Kumar W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 21 of 35 H. Pandya, Son of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 24 years, Occupation:- Mining business, all of residence At:- Barbil, P.O.:- Barbil, P.S. :- Barbil, District :- Keonjhar in the state of Orissa, (8) Smt. Piya Pandya, Widow of Late Hargovind Pandya aged about 43 years, (9) Kumari Reshmi Pandya, Daughter of Late Hargovind Pandya aged about 17 years, (10) Kumari Payal Pandya, Daughter of Late Hargovind Pandya aged about 11 years, all of residence At :- 9A, Park Road, P.O.:- Jamshedpur, District :- Singhbhum in the state of Bihar (Name of person with address and occupation), Occupation:- Mining business (hereinafter referred to as “the lessees” which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and their permitted assigns) of the other part represented by Shri Kantiprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirjee Dhanjee Pandya aged about 54 years by occupation:- Mining business, residence of Barbil, P.O.:- Barbil, P.S. :- Barbil, District:- Keonjhar in the state of Orissa, the power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Hargovind Pandya and Others. … …” Referring to Form-‘K’ reproduced above it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the State has entered into agreement with the power of attorney holder on behalf of all the lessees. 25. It is further submitted that the notice to all the lessees is in terms of Section 24 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as notice is to one of the partners. Section 24 is reproduced herein: “24. Effect of notice to acting partner.—Notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the firm operates as notice to the firm, except in the case W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 22 of 35 of a fraud on the firm committed by or with the consent of that partner.” 26. Apart from the contention raised by the learned AGA that Shri DPH Pandya received notice on behalf of partnership firm, in the alternative it is submitted by the learned AGA that the said notice is to the ‘partnership firm’ which had been granted the mining lease, so sufficient on all the partners. 27. The learned AGA relies on Section 6 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which is reproduced herein: “6. Mode of determining existence of partnership. – In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the real relation between the parties, as shown by all relevant facts taken together. Explanation 1. – The sharing of profits or of gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not of itself make such persons partners. Explanation 2. – The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business, or of a payment contingent upon the earning of profits or varying with the profits earned by a business, does not of itself make him a partner with the persons carrying on the business; And in particular, the receipt of such share or payment- (a) by a lender of money to persons engaged or about to engage in any business, (b) by a servant or agent as remuneration, (c) by the widow or child of a deceased partner, as annuity, or (d) by a previous owner or part owner of the business, as consideration for the sale of the goodwill or share thereof, W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 23 of 35 does not of itself make the receiver a partner with the persons carrying on the business.” In the context of the Section 6 of Act, 1932, it is submitted by the learned AGA that the legal heirs of the deceased Sri Kanta Prasad Hirji Pandya i.e. his wife and children have been admitted to the partnership firm and also in the profit sharing. He refers to Annexure-5 of the writ petition to contend that the said power of attorney, though is limited in language, the subsequent power of attorney as at Annexure-D/4(annexed to the reply to rejoinder) is in language wider in ambit, which go to show that notice to the power of attorney holder would be sufficient to the individual lessees/partners. 28. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that the POA executed in 2010 is not ‘registered’, is only ‘notarized’ and cannot be relied upon by the authority to develop the argument of sufficiency of notice, the learned AGA refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Syed Abdul Khader vs. Rami Reddy5, paragraph-17, that is reproduced herein: “17. Incidentally in this connection it was urged that the power to purchase and sell land and to execute documents and to offer them for registration does not include the power to sell agricultural land. This has only to be mentioned to be rejected because the expression “lands” would include both agricultural and non-agricultural land.” 5 AIR 1979 SC 553 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 24 of 35 29. Learned AGA refers to Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponding to Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to submit that even notarized power of attorney can be relied upon. The learned AGA, further relies on the provision contained in Section 229 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said Section 229 provides thus: “229.Consequences of notice given to agent.— Any notice given to or information obtained by the agent, provided it be given or obtained in the course of the business transacted by him for the principal, shall, as between the principal and third parties, have the same legal consequences as if it had been given to or obtained by the principal. Illustrations (a) A is employed by B to buy from C certain goods, of which C is the apparent owner, and buys them accordingly. In the course of the treaty for the sale, A learns that the goods really belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact. B is not entitled to set-off a debt owing to him from C against the price of the goods. (b) A is employed by B to buy from C goods of which C is the apparent owner. A was, before he was so employed, a servant of C, and then learnt that the goods really belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact. In spite of the knowledge of his agent, B may set-off against the price of the goods a debt owing to him from C.” The learned AGA submits in the case at hand, the POA holder is the agent and notice to the agent is sufficient notice to the principal. He relies on the decision of the W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 25 of 35 Madras High Court in M. Masilamani vs. M. Veeramani & another6. 30. When the learned AGA was requested to show/refer to the notice to the ‘acting partner’ as contemplated in the Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, he refers to Annexure-F/3 annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the opposite party no.3-Deputy Director of Mines, Joda Circle i.e. demand notice dated 02.09.2017 which reads thus:- “OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES, JODA CIRCLE No.4046/Mines Dt. 02.09.17 DEMAND NOTICE To M/s. H.G Pandya & Others. At/Po:- Barbil Dist:- Keonjhar 1. Whereas, it has been observed that H.G Pandya & Others, the mining lease holder of Jajang Iron and Mn Ore mines over an area of 100.137 Ha., has undertaken production of Iron Ore from the above referred mining lease hold area without or in excess of the approved limit of production under Environmental Clearance during 2000-01 to 2010-11. 2. And Whereas pursuant to the interim order dt. 16.05.2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 Common Cause vrs. Union of India and others, the CEC has dealt among others, the issue of production without or in excess of EC and has submitted its final report on dt. 16.10.2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said report the CEC under Para 34 has calculated the notional value of the total quantities of iron and manganese produced without EC/beyond EC by all the lessees in the State 6 2017 SCC Online Mad 4978 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 26 of 35 of Odisha during the years 2000-01 to 2010-2011. The details of year wise production of Iron Ore in the Jajang Iron and Mn Ore mining leasehold area along with the approved limit of production under EC, the excess production, price of mineral and the notional value (price of minerals) of total quantities of Iron Ore produced without E.C./beyond the EC by you during the years 2000-01 to 2010- 11 as have been indicated in the said report is annexed herewith as Annexure I. 3. Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated 2.8.2017 in the W.P.(C)No.114 of 2014 has observed under para 128 that “…………the holder of a mining lease is required to adhere to the terms of the mining scheme, the mining plan and the mining lease as well as the statutes such as the ERPA, the FCA, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. If any mining operation is conducted in violation of any of these requirements, then that mining operation is illegal or unlawful. Any extraction of a mineral through an illegal or unlawful mining operation would become illegally or unlawfully extracted mineral". 4. Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgement has further observed under Para 150 that "In our opinion, Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act is applicable when any person raises without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land. In the event, the State Government is entitled to recover from such person the mineral so raised or where the mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof as compensation. The words 'any land' are not confined to the mining leaser area. As far as the mining lease area is concerned, extraction of a mineral over and above what is permissible under the mining plan or under the EC undoubtedly attracts the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act being extraction without lawful authority. ……………..” W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 27 of 35 5. Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgement has further held in Para 156 that "Since the recommendation made by the CEC in this regard is not totally unreasonable, we accept that the compensation should be payable from 2000- 2001 onwards at 100% of the price of the mineral, as rationalized by the CEC." 6. Whereas considering the above excess production as production without lawful authority, you are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 86,41,20,698.00/- (Eighty Six Crore Forty One Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight Only) being the price thereof towards compensation under Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 for production without/in excess of the environmental clearance as rationalized by the CEC, in pursuance to the judgement dt.02.08.2017 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of W.P. (C) No. 114/14 Common Cause vrs. Union of India and Others. Now therefore, you are hereby directed that you shall pay the compensation of Rs. 86,41,20,698.00/- (Eighty Six Crore Forty One Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Eight Only) as detailed in Annexure I on or before 31.12.2017 in pursuance to the para 225 of the Order dt.02.08.2017 of Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the mode of payment as detailed out under Annexure II. It is also made clear that the aforesaid demand is relatable to recovery of price of minerals produced without/beyond the EC alone under Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 as adjudicated vide para 156 of the judgement as referred above and does not include recoveries under Section 21(5) of the said act for violation of mining plan, consent requirements under Air/Water Act and Forest violations, for which the demands, if any would be raised separately. Sd/- DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES JODA CIRCLE, DIST:- KEONJHAR” W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 28 of 35 31. The learned Sr. Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9263 of 2024, W.P.(C) No.9264 of 2024 and W.P.(C) 12358 of 2024 decided on 26.03.2026. It is submitted that in those cases the appeals were pending before the appellate authority arising out of the adjudication by the OPDR authority and this Court after considering the pleadings as well as submissions has directed the appeals to be heard by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack- appellate authority, granting the parties the opportunity to complete the respective pleadings and also granting opportunity to the parties to make their respective submissions before the appellate authority. He submits that in the present case notice having not been sufficient/affected parties having not been noticed, the matter should be heard again by the Mining authority. Discussions and conclusion of the Court 32. This Court takes note of Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act,1932 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreting the said Section, in Malabar Fisheries Co., Calicut vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala7 and Comptroller and Auditor General v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta8, which are in the chain of decisions and are still good law, laying down that a partnership firm is not legal entity, like a company. It is a group of individual 7 AIR 1980 SC 176 8 (2003) 2 SCC 349 W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 29 of 35 partners and the property belongs to all the partners constituting the firm. By applying the principle of law enunciated in Malabar Fisheries Co., Calicut (supra) and Comptroller and Auditor General (supra) contention raised on behalf of opposite parties that execution of Form-‘K’ by the lessees with State would lead to a conclusion that as Form-‘K’ is executed by POA holder and notice to him is notice to all the individual lessees/partnership firm, is untenable and has to be rejected. It may be that the power of attorney holder has signed on behalf of all the lessees in the lease deed, but the recital in the lease deed, which is signed by the Collector, Keonjhar on behalf of the State Government, entered into between the Governor of Odisha and the lessees, is clear to the extent that the ‘lessees’ are ten in number as mentioned in Form-‘K’. In all the covenants of the lease deed the term ‘lessees’ is mentioned including the covenant indicating ‘Notice’ (reproduced above). 33. Reading of the above quoted demand notice at paragraph-31 dated 02.09.2017 reproduced at para-31 above, makes it clear that the notice was not issued to ‘the acting partner’ as contemplated in Section 24 of the Partnership Act, but it was to ‘M/s. H.G. Pandya & others, At/Po- Barbil, Dist.: Keonjhar’. Therefore the argument that notice was issued to the ‘acting partner’ as W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 30 of 35 contemplated in Section 24 of the Partnership Act has to fail. 34. The judicial pronouncements relied upon on behalf of the opposite parties and dealt with in the preceding paragraphs would be of no avail for their cause as the fact matrix of those cases are at poles apart from the facts of the present writ application. A decision is only an authority for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix, and not for all that, would logically follow from what has been so laid down or every observation made, said the Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor more than a century ago in Quinn vs. Leatham9, and I quote: “Before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, [1898] AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before-that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all. I think that the application of these two propositions renders the decision of this case perfectly plain, notwithstanding the decision in Allen v. Flood(1).” [Underlined to supply emphasis] 9 [1901] UKHL 2: [1901] AC 495: [1900-3] All E.R. Rep.1 (Placitum H & I) W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 31 of 35 35. Applying the principles laid down in Quinn vs. Leatham (supra), it has to be held that the decisions relied upon by the learned AGA do lay down sound propositions of law but would not come to the aid of the opposite party authorities to support and justify the procedure adopted/followed by them in adjudicating and deciding the demand raised U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act and in the proceeding initiated for recovery of the amount under the provisions of OPDR Act. 36. Accordingly, it is held that execution of power of attorney by the lease holders giving certain power to one of the lease holders would not have a legal consequence that notice issued to the POA holder by statutory authority invoking and acting under a particular statute (such as MMDR Act, OPDR Act) can be treated as notice to all the lessees. Such proposition advanced by opposite parties has to be and is answered in the negative. 37. In the Certificate Case No.30 of 2018, the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Certificate Officer (at Annexure-8 to the writ petition has been reproduced at paragraph-7 above) discloses that on the said date i.e. 11.04.2025 the Certificate Officer “… received from Deputy Director Mines, Joda Circle, Keonjhar… The list of legal heirs of H.G. Pandya”. The Certificate Officer though was adjudicating the matter, himself substituted the legal heirs as ‘certificate debtors’ by observing: W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 32 of 35 “Hence it is substituted the CDr. By his wife Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya and others as detailed below: …” The above approach of the certificate authority manifest in the order goes to show that no application was made by the ‘certificate holder’ requiring issuance of notice to substitute the ‘certificate debtors’. Before substituting the ‘certificate debtors’ no notice has been issued. The Certificate Officer while adjudicating, on his own motion, has substituted the ‘legal heirs’ as ‘CDrs’ on the date their name was furnished in a ‘list’, such procedure is not prescribed in the OPDR Act. Then the Certificate Officer has gone ahead to ask the newly added persons terming them as CDrs., to pay the demand. Such approach of the Certificate Officer cannot be countenanced in law and the Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 has to be and is struck down by this Court. 38. However, in view of the ultimate direction that would be issued in the present batch of writ applications the propositions of law answered by this Court would not impact the future proceedings concerning the petitioners. 39. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the pleadings and considering the case law cited at the Bar as well as noted and relied upon by this Court and in view of the discussions made above; this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, to comply with the principles of natural justice i.e. giving opportunity to the party/person W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 33 of 35 affected and to comply with the constitutional guarantee of procedural fairness/due process/rule against arbitrariness, mandated to be followed by all the authorities in all the proceedings; the matter should be and is directed to be re-heard by the appropriate authority competent to hear the issues arising out of the mining lease and conditions thereof under the MMDR Act, 1957 to determine the liability of the writ petitioners. 40. Accordingly, it is directed the present petitioners shall appear before Deputy Director of Mines/appropriate authority competent to adjudicate U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act on 10th July, 2026. The other lessees who have not approached this Court shall also have the liberty to appear before the Deputy Director of Mines/competent authority on the said date. The authority of the Mining Department under MMDR Act/relevant statute shall issue notice to the lessees who are not before this Court to appear before it by a date in the proceeding as would be directed for determination of the liability U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act. 41. The petitioners in the present applications and the other lessees who are not parties in the writ applications but their names find place in the lease deed, if so advised, shall make application by 20th July, 2026 before the Deputy Director of Mines or the appropriate authority to provide them with the relevant documents which they need to refer, to defend/for giving reply to the show W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 34 of 35 cause/demand towards the mining dues U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. 41.1 In case of non-availability of any documents, sought for the authority shall be free to disclose the reason and inform the applicant(s) regarding such non-availability. The matter shall not be detained for non-availability of any such document. 42. After supply of the documents to all the present petitioners and the other lessees, they shall have the liberty to file their respective reply within six weeks from the date of supply of documents/intimation regarding unavailability. 42.1 The appropriate authority shall have the liberty to issue notice at the earliest to all the lessees/other entities concerned for filing their response to the demand U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as notice would be necessary to the persons who are not parties in the present batch of writ applications. The other persons/entities, if they would be noticed by the authority regarding the demand of mining dues, shall also have six weeks’ time to respond. 43. After filing of the response of the noticees, the response of the State to the said reply (ies), if any and if so advised, shall be filed within six weeks before the adjudicating authority. Thereafter the demand regarding the mining dues shall be determined including the liability of the writ petitioners/others to pay the same following due procedure of law. W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 35 of 35 44. If any demand is saddled on any of the noticees, the noticee shall have the liberty to challenge the same as would be available to them under law including the relevant statutes. The mining authority shall have the liberty to initiate all proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the amount if found to be due to be paid by any of the noticees. 45. The learned counsel representing the State/ Department of Mining appearing before the authority adjudicating the demand U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act shall apprise the authority by producing copies of all the orders passed/directions issued by Hon’ble the Apex Court which would have any bearing on the subject under adjudication. 46. No part of this judgment and the directions issued shall be treated to be expression of opinion of this Court on any of the contentions that may be raised by any of the parties in the adjudication(s) that would be taken up. 47. With the aforesaid observation and directions the writ petitions are disposed of. Urgent certified copy shall be issued as per rules. The parties shall have liberty to act upon the copy of this judgment obtained from the official website of this Court. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd May, 2026/Radha/Jyostna CUTTACK