IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27982 of 2025 Balasore Stone Crusher Owners’ …. Petitioner Association Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 24.11.2025

01. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the Balasore Stone Crusher Owners’ Association challenging Clause-3(c)(iii) of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) adopted by the Government for registration of stone crusher units under the Integrated Minor Mineral Mining Management System (I4MS) portal on the premise that the same is unreasonable, unworkable and imposes an unnecessary burden on the stone crusher operators and, therefore, it should be struck down.

2. The said SOP is annexed to the instant writ petition which reveals that the same was felt inevitable to streamline the process of regulations and monitoring of the stone crusher units across the State. The said SOP further reflects that it was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 58(8) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (OMMC) Rules, 2016 and is applicable to all new and the existing stone crusher units operating within the State.

3. Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that taking a written consent from the quarry lease holders creates unnecessary burden on the stone crusher operators, who are operating since long and it will be very difficult to comply with said direction as the same is sine qua non for registration of the stone crusher units in terms of Form-A. Mr. Mohanty further submits that the said clause is unconscionable, unreasonable and, therefore, should be struck down.

4. As indicated hereinabove, the Government of Odisha, through the Steel and Mines Department, felt necessary to frame the SOP making all the stone crusher units, both existing or new, to get themselves registered and the requisite information or the documents, which are required to be submitted in this regard are also succinctly and exhaustively incorporated therein.

5. The objective underlying the said SOP to be framed by the Government can be traced from paragraph-2 of the same to establish a transparent and efficient mechanism for monitoring the movement of boulders from the source to a crusher unit and also systematizing the movement of crushed materials from crusher units to the end-

user across the State.

6. On a meaningful reading of the said objectives incorporated in paragraph-2 of the said SOP, the latent intention of the Government can very well be envisioned from the fact that in order to curve or put a complete brindle into an illegal mining activities across the State, the written consent from the quarry lease holder is one of the requisite conditions which every stone crusher unit operator must strictly adhered to.

7. The moment the stone comes within the periphery of the OMMC Rules, it implies that the quarry operation cannot be permitted without any permission and/or license granted by the State and also provides for a quantity of extraction to be made by the quarry lease holders. The stone crusher unit operators cannot crush the stones unless mined from the quarry and we do not find any irrationality and/or illegality in imposing the conditions that the petitioner should obtain a written consent from a quarry lease holder if the petitioner does not possess the license for a quarry lease. Obviously, the Government was conscious that a quarry lease holder may install a stone crusher unit to have the stones/boulders converted into smaller sizes and have kept them outside the purview of such conditions. It is only those stone crusher operators, who do not have any quarry license are required to obtain a written consent from a quarry lease holder as the stones are being entrusted to them to break into a particular size and in order to eradicate any illegal mining acros