The court cannot compel lease extensions in the absence of statutory provisions, affirming that obligations caused by judicial orders do not provide grounds for renewal requests outside established law.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The petitioner came up before this Court for issuance of a mandamus upon the Mining Officer to forthwith permit him to operate the Makarampur Sand Source for remaining un-operated lease period and also to declare the prolonging inaction of the opposite parties in not taking a decision despite the disposal of a matter before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner was adjudged as a successful bidder in relation to a sand quarry and a lease deed was also executed on 26^th February, 2016 for a period of five years. The petitioner, after fulfilling and/or complying all the terms and conditions embodied in the said lease deed as well as the statutory provisions, ensued the operation, but was subsequently prevented from 5^th October, 2018 because of the interdict created in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2.1. Admittedly, the said order creates a brindle in operation of the sand quarries across the State which remained operative till 26^th February, 2021, when the said proceeding pending before the NGT was finally disposed of. Obviously, between the periods from 5^th October, 2018 till the period of expiration of the lease, the petitioner was prevented from operating the said sand quarry, yet, in order to ensure his obligation, the statutory amounts were deposited with the authority. Obviously, the petitioner was prevented from utilizing the usufructs of the said lease because of the order of the NGT and approached the authority to extend or renew the lease for such period when the order of the NGT was operative. The authority is sitting over the said representation and has not taken any conscious decision thereupon.

3. According to the petitioner, there was some disputes with regard to the identification of a land between the State of Odisha and the State of West Bengal and in commensurate with the direction passed by the NGT, a letter dated 7^th September, 2025 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue, Balasore) for deputation of the staff for submission of the cadastral map of six villages adjoining to inter-State boundary with the State of West Bengal and a joint demarcation thereof. The petitioner perceived the said action having taken to revive and or resurrect the mining activities across the State which was put at halt by the interdict created by the NGT. As indicated herein above, the representation remained unattended and no conscious decision has been taken thereupon.

4. Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the authority cannot deprive the petitioner from using and utilizing the resources for the entire period of lease and in fact, the State has been directed to extend the period in a slew of litigations filed before this Court.

4.1. To buttress the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench order of this Court dated 31^st May, 2021 passed in Jayaram Das v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.36099 of 2020) where, in an identical situation, a direction was passed upon the State to extend the tenure of the lease by a period of one year eight months and ten days, when the said order of the NGT was operative.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appearing on behalf of the State submits that neither the Rules nor the Act applicable in this regard contained the provision relating to extension and/or renewal of the lease which expired by efflux of time. It is further submitted that