p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8070 of 2026 Sawmyadip Chakrabarty …. Petitioner Mr. Tarun Patnaik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 31.03.2026 01. 1. The letter dated 12th January, 2026 issued by the Mining Officer-in-Charge, Balasore imposing the penalty for illegal extraction of the minor minerals from outside the quarry site by the petitioner, is assailed primarily on the ground of violation of principles of the natural justice. 2. By letter dated 26th December, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer, Balasore to a third party, the assessment of an over extraction was entrusted to it and the communication made to the petitioner would reveal that the inspection was fixed on 3rd January, 2026 and a direction was passed upon the JMO, Basta Tahasil to remain personally present during such inspection and also ensure the presence of the lease-owners and the attendance sheet that would be prepared on the said date, shall be submitted to the said Office. 3. The letter dated 12th January, 2026 reveals that the inspection was done on 4th January, 2026, which is termed as the surprise inspection instead of 3rd January, 2026 in presence of all the p. 2 officials and the demand is raised on several counts and the penalty is also imposed thereupon. 4. It is, thus, apparent from the tenet of the said letter that despite the date fixed for inspection in presence of the petitioner, the inspection appears to have been done on the next date which leads to an inescapable inference that the said inspection was done in absence of the petitioner. The moment the authorities have decided to inspect the site in order to observe, whether there has been any violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or any extra and/or excessive extractions of the minerals is done by the leaseholder either within the leased area or beyond the peripheral thereof, it is improbable that the inspection would be done on any other day than the day so fixed, that too in absence of the leaseholder. There is no document forthcoming which would evince that the petitioner was given a notice of the deferred inspection. Any imposition made under the Act without affording an opportunity of hearing offends the core ethos of the principles of natural justice. 5. The facet of the natural justice is one of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and offends the core fabric thereof. It is manifest from the tenet of the letter dated 12th January, 2026 that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to remain present in the inspection nor was given any opportunity of hearing before the authorities surreptitiously to raise a demand against the petitioner. 6. Since the order impugned suffers from the vice of the violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is hereby set aside. The competent authority is directed to fix a date for inspection and duly communicate the same to the petitioner, who shall remain present at p. 3 the time of such inspection and in the event the authorities proceed to raise any demand, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER