Prasanta Kumar Mohanty vs State of Odisha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Harish Tandon, Murahari Sri Raman
Prasanta Kumar Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief for operating sand quarry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's arguments for lease extension. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court examines legal provisions for lease extension. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court directs authorities to reconsider extension request. (Para 8)
5. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 9)

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