The court held the authority's demand for additional charges under Rule 39 was illegal as it applies only to government organizations, ruling that extension of such provisions to private leaseholders is unwarranted.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The petitioner has challenged the several demand notices issued by the authorities claiming the additional charges in respect of Sarandamal Stone Quarry solely on the ground that the foundation of the levy of the additional charges taking shelter under Rule 39 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short “the OMMC Rules”) is per se illegal.

2. Undisputedly, on the basis of an application of the petitioner, the lease of the said Sarandamal Stone Quarry under Lakhanpur Tahasil was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years from the year 2018 to 2023. The petitioner observed all the formalities and the paraphernalia, required in execution of the lease deed to operationalize the Stone Quarry, including the payment of additional charges contemplated under Rule 32(3) of the OMMC Rules. According to the petitioner, the impugned demand notices are per se illegal, infirm and liable to be quashed and set aside as the authority cannot invoke a particular provision of the statute, which is not applicable to the persons like the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, a plea of demur is taken by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible. According to her, the writ petition is not maintainable, the moment a remedy by way of appeal is provided under the OMMC Rules. She further submits that the terms and conditions embodied in the lease provides for levy of additional charges and, therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from such contractual obligation.

4. In support of a contention that a writ petition is not maintainable, reliance is placed upon three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. Kamla Singh and others , (1976) 2 SCC 152 . Further reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , (2021) 6 SCC 771 , on the proposition that unless violation of the fundamental rights or non-adherence of the principles of natural justice or the order being wholly without jurisdiction and the vires of the Act is assailed, the Court should not entertain the writ petition, when the alternative efficacious remedy is provided in the statute.

5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the letter dated 14^th October, 2019, the additional charges are to be calculated on the basis of the formula indicated therein and a subsequent letter dated 24^th September, 2020 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Jharsuguda exposited the fact that the quarry lease holders are liable to pay additional charges in terms of the formula indicated in the preceding letter and, therefore, the demand so raised in commensurate therewith does not warrant any interference.

6. Taking the plea of alternative remedy being a hurdle in maintaining the writ petition at the first, we hasten to add that none of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court spanning over more than two decades from the era of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 to the judgment rendered in Radha Krishan Industries (supra), it has been held with clarity and the precision that the constitutional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is taken away in absolute terms if the statute provides a forum for ventilating the grievance. From the regime of Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala , (1973) 4 SCC 225 to L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Unio