Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ., M.S. RAMAN, J.
Shashank Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 20708 of 2025
Decided On : 22-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate along with Mr. Byotkesh Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate.
The authority cannot impose demands or penalties under the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules on individuals not specified in the relevant provisions, leading to quashing of unjustified claims.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 - Rule 58(1) and Rule 51 - Writ Petition challenging demand notices for Royalty, Environmental Compensation Charges, and penalties for illegal extraction of sand - Authority cannot apply the provisions of law against persons not covered under the statute, leading to quashing of demands against petitioner. (Paras 5.3, 7, 8)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - The court emphasized that the application of rules must align with the specific categories of individuals outlined in the law, as extending applicability improperly lacks legal merit. (Para 5.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a successful bidder for a sand quarry, received notices demanding payment for alleged illegal sand extraction despite not holding the required environmental clearance. The petitioner objected, asserting a lack of connection to the quarry operation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the demands by the authority were misconceived as the petitioner was not covered under the relevant statutes for imposing penalties or demands, resulting in the quashing of said notices. (Paras 7, 8)
Issues: The principal issues revolved around the authority’s jurisdiction in issuing demands under the OMMC Rules to an individual not defined by those rules, and the legality of imposing penalties without requisite grounds. (Paras 5.3, 6.4)
Ratio Decidendi: The authority improperly applied Rule 58(1) against the petitioner as he did not qualify under the statutory definitions, which led to the court's finding that such applications require precise adherence to statutory language and scope. (Para 5.2)
Result: The impugned demands are quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against demand notices related to sand quarry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding improper attribution of demands. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. interpretation of rule 58 of ommc rules. (Para 5) |
| 4. authority's power to impose penalties under ommc. (Para 6) |
| 5. quashing of demands and disposal of the petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is laid to the demand notices dated 2nd May, 2024 and 18th March, 2025 issued by the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda (opposite party No.5) vide Annexure-3, and Annexure-7 respectively directing the petitioner to deposit Royalty & Additional Charges, Environmental Compensation Charges, penalty along with interest @ 24% per annum up to 30th April, 2024 aggregating to Rs.1,59,14,810/- (Rupees one crore fifty nine lakhs fourteen thousand and eight hundred ten) and also demand notice dated 19th November, 2022 issued by the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda (opposite party No.5) under Annexure-4 directing to deposit Royalty and Additional Charges and Environmental Compensation Charges @ Rs.1000/- per cum of sand as well as penalty aggregating to Rs.1,07,53,250/- (Rupees one crore seven lakh fifty three thousand two hundred fifty) under Rule 51 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (“OMMC Rules”, for short).
2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the successful bidder in respect of Loisingh sand quarry. On being informed, it is submitted that for want of environment clearance, no mining lease has yet been executed.
2.1. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner received notice vide P.R.No.2506 dated 2nd May, 2024 from the Office of the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda wherein he along with his brother Sri Aashish Yadav and another person Sri Deepak Ray were directed to deposit the value of mineral and penalty for illegal extraction of sand amounting Rs.1,59,14,810/-. The authority thereafter proceeded to raise afore-stated demand under Rule 58(1) of the said Rules.
3. It is submitted by Sri Gauri Mohan Rath, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Byotkesh Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner that being not connected with the lease of sand quarry, the petitioner filed objection dated 02.07.2024 before the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda that he has not granted with lease because of want of environment clearance, as such the Revenue Inspector has mistakenly entangled his name with that of other two persons, whose names find place in the notice of demand. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda having not taken into consideration such objection, continues to proceed to pursue demand against the present petitioner.
4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate proceeded to oppose the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that notices are issued in respect of three persons who are involved in the quarry and transportation of sand without due authority or permit. Therefore, the notice of demand issued against three persons including the present petitioner is just and proper, warranting no intervention by exercise of writ jurisdiction. He sought to justify the action of the authority concerned.
5. In order to appreciate the dispute raised by the petitioner, it is profitable to take note of Rule 58(1) of the OMMC Rules which is reproduced hereunder:
"58. Miscellaneous.—
(1) No holder of prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit or auction purchaser shall dispatch any minerals from an area without a valid transit pass in Form-Y issued electronically by Competent Authority—
(a) the Deputy Director of Mines or Mining Officer having jurisdiction in case of specified minor minerals; and
(b) the Competent Authority in case of minerals other than Specified Minor Minerals."
5.1. On a plain reading of the language employed in the said provision, it leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the holder of a prospecting license-cum-mining lease or mining lease or quarry lease or quarry permit or auction pu
