IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17380 of 2026 Prasanta Kumar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. Milan Kanungo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN Order No. ORDER 02.06.2026 01. 1. The matter is taken up in virtual mode. 2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer(s):- “In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash the letter bearing No.-7751/MM, Jajpur dated 20.12.2025 as under Annexure-8 and the letter no.- 3370 dated 21.05.2026 as under Annexure-9; And; further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.- 4 to enter into agreement/lease for the Dankari Blackstone Quarry no-9/8 with the Petitioner in consonance with the OMMC Rules, 2016; And; be further pleased to pass any other order(s)/Direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper” 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having participated in the auction, being declared highest bidder for Dankari Black Stone Quarry No.9/8 applied for mining plan under Rule 28 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”) and also Environmental Clearance before the competent authorities. 2.1. After such execution of the lease deed and payments of statutory dues being made in respect of sairat source, all on a sudden the petitioner received letter bearing No.7751/MM, dated 20th December, 2025 from the Mining Officer, Jajpur to appear before him for personal hearing in connection with premature closure of the said Stone Quarry. 2.2. Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4615 of 2026 challenging the order dated 20.12.2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.04.2026 directing thus:- “It is apposite to direct that the petitioner may approach the competent authority within a period of seven days hence with a comprehensive proposal/representation and the competent authority may take appropriate decision keeping in view the request made by the Mining Officer (I/C), Jajpur District within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with copy of this order.” 2.3. The petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur along with copy of the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 4615 of 2026. The Mining Officer of the said office sought for clarification from the Directorate of Minor Minerals, Odisha, vide office Letter No.2794 dated 18.04.2026. The letter of the Mining Officer was replied to by the Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of Minor minerals, Odisha vide Letter No.1420 dated 15.05.2026 indicating thus: “the view recorded by Mining Officer, Jajpur, is in consonance with the prevailing provisions of the Govt. of Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and its amendment thereof. There exists no enabling provision under the said Rules for grant of an alternative black stone quarry on nomination/priority basis, nor is there any provision for payment of compensation in lieu of premature termination of quarry operation under Rule 3(3) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.” The Mining Officer vide impugned Annexure-9, office letter dated 21.05.2026, has quoted the observation of the Joint Director (Administration) and rejected the representation of the petitioner. 2.4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the conclusions of the Joint Director (Administration) as well as the Mining Officer, Jajpur are erroneous and contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4615 of 2026 dated 07.04.2026. As has been observed in the said order, the Government has power to relax the provisions of the OMMC Rules under Rule 64. 2.5. It is urged that the petitioner has never conceded for the premature closure of Dankari Black Stone Quarry. It is submitted that several approaches are made to the authority concerned, but in vain. 3. Sri Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the closure of quarry being directed by the competent authority for a project having public interest and, accordingly, the lease having been terminated, the writ petition is not entertainable. However, it is submitted that the Government is competent to relax any provisions of the OMMC Rules invoking Rule 64 thereof. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 5. This Court is taken to Rule 64 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession 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.” 6. With the aforesaid factual background and in upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is deemed apposite to reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government-competent authority with comprehensive representation within a period of fifteen days from date. On such eventuality, the competent authority shall consider the representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with representation without being influenced by any of the observations made in the earlier Office order dated 20th December, 2025 and office order dated 21.05.2026 and take a decision invoking provisions of Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules. It is expected that a reasoned order shall be passed within the period stipulated as above and communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 7. As an abundant caution, it is clarified that nothing stated above on facts be construed as an expression of any opinion of this Court 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 by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above orders passed, Annexure-9 shall not be given effect to. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition along with pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, stand disposed of. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Vacation Judge (M.S. Raman) Vacation Judge Radha