The court ruled that administrative delays should not impede a valid leaseholder's right to operate, allowing the petitioner to continue quarry operations until lease expiration.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to the Deputy Director of Mines-cum-Controlling Authority, Jajpur- Opposite Party No.6 to allow him to operate the sand quarry, namely, Bhagatpur Sand Sairat Source (for brevity the ‘Sand Quarry’) and also to direct the Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 to extend the lease period in proportion of pendency of litigation before this Court.

3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, being the highest bidder, was allowed to operate the Sand Quarry by executing the lease agreement on 4^th August, 2020 and depositing the royalty of Rs.41,37,319/- for the first year. After operating only for two days, the Tahasildar, Rasulpur-Opposite Party No.5, who was then the Competent Authority, directed him to stop the quarry operation. It is his submission that one Binod Kumar Pandit along with others had filed W.P.(C).(PIL) No.22162 of 2020 before this Court challenging the steps taken for operation of the quarry, namely, Bhagatpur Sand Sairat Source. This Court, considering the case of the Petitioner, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 4^th September, 2020 with the following direction:

“ On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. P.P.Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocates submits that the mining operation as per relevant laws is not allowed to be carried out till the approval of the mining plan as well as environment clearance is obtained and lease deed is executed. In view of the above statement of the learned Additional Government Advocate, we require the Collector, Jajpur (OP No.2) to ensure non-lifting/non-excavation of sand from the Sairat in question until redressal of grievance of the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Court gives liberty to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation before the Collector, Jajpur (OP No.2) within a period of seven days from today, who shall do well to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of filing of such representation by passing a reasoned order.

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.”

4. Accordingly, said Binod Kumar Pandit filed a representation before the Collector, Jajpur, which was registered as Misc. Case No.29 of 2020. The Collector, Jajpur vide order dated 17^th December, 2020 (Annexure-B/6 to the Counter Affidavit) dismissed the said representation being devoid of any merit and directed to communicate all concerns accordingly along with copy of the said order. Said Binod Kumar Pandit and others being not satisfied with the order passed by the Collector, Jajpur, filed W.P.(C).(PIL) No.7611 of 2021 before this Court, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29^th April, 2024. For the entire period as aforesaid, the Petitioner was not permitted to operate the Sand Quarry, although, he is otherwise entitled to the same. Accordingly, the Petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Director of Mines-cum-Controlling Authority, Jajpur to allow him to permit the Sand Quarry as by then, the administrative control of the sand sairats were transferred to the Steel and Mines Department. Upon receipt of the representation filed by the Petitioner, the Deputy Director of Mines-cum-Controlling Authority, Jajpur sought for a clarification from the Tahasildar, Rasulpur vide his Letter No.1455/MM dated 8^th May, 2024. On receipt of the said letter, th