The Mining Officer must independently assess refund claims regarding Sairat dues under amended rules, with proper reasoning required for decisions, ensuring jurisdictional compliance.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by refusal to grant refund of Sairat dues, on the ground that this Court while disposing of the writ petition being WP(C) No.7945 of 2024, vide order dated 8^th April, 2024 directed the Assistant Mining Officer, Puri to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, by the Tahasildar, Pipili vide Letter No.2918, dated 29^th March, 2025 (Annexure-1) and in consequence thereto the order of the Mining Officer, Puri voicing what has been spelt out by the Tahasildar, Pipili while returning the records relating to Original Sairat Case No.06/2019-20 along with other requisites vide Letter No.322/Mines, Puri, dated 11^th June, 2025 (Annexure-2), the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in further round of litigation by way of filing the present writ petition invoking provisions of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals that the lease agreement dated 1^st January, 2021 in respect of Patelikuda Sand Sairat at the embankment of river Bhargavi under Pipili Tahasil of Puri district was executed in favour of the petitioner under the provision of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “the OMMC Rules”) for a period of five years commencing on 21^st December, 2020 and ending on 20^th December, 2025.

2.1. After obtaining permission/approval in pursuit of compliance of statutory requirements, after having functioning for around three months, by virtue of Letter No.2551, dated 23^rd April, 2021 the Tahasildar, Pipili stopped transportation of sand from the said Sairat. The Tahasildar, Pipili issued letter to the IIC, Pipili vide Memo No.2844, dated 4^th May, 2021 (Annexure-6) intimating that the transportation of sand from Patelikuda Sand Sairat source is treated to be unauthorized as the lease holder did not deposit yearly statutory dues for the year 2021-22.

2.2. Though the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.78,36,578/- on different dates out of total demand of Rs.85,72,638/- and requested the Mining Officer, Puri to extend the time to deposit the rest amount of Rs.7,36,060/-, which she could not deposit due to health issues, having not considered such plight, the Tahasildar, Pipili demanded the rest amount by adding interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the outstanding amount.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Tahasildar runs counter to what is required to do under Rule 33(5) of the OMMC Rules. The Tahasildar, Pipili without cancelling the lease, continue to demand arrear dues each year by adding interest 24% per annum thereupon. It is submitted by virtue of an amendment brought into the statute book, the Lease Case No.6/2019-2020 of the petitioner was transferred by the Tahasildar, Pipili to the Mining Officer, Puri. However, the representation dated 26^th February, 2024 of the petitioner submitted to the Mining Officer, Puri remained unattended to, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition, registered as WP(C) No.7945 of 2024, before this Court. The said writ petition stood disposed of on 8^th April, 2024 with a direction to the Assistant Mining Officer, Puri to dispose of the representation dated 26^th February, 2024 within three months from the date of order.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that after two years from the date of direction of this Court as aforesaid, the Mining Officer, Puri by mechanical application of mind merely reiterated what was stated by the Tahasildar, Pipili in his letter dated 29^th March, 2025 and refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the pretext that the Tahasildar, Pipili held that she