IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18542 of 2024 Arnada Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. Abhishek Dash, 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. 18.02.2026

02. 1. Undisputedly, the petitioner was granted a Sand Sairat on execution of an agreement for a period of five years under the relevant provisions contained in Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short “the OMMC Rules, 2016”) but was unable to operate the said sand sairat for a period of four months as the consent to operate was granted by the competent authority thereafter. 2. The petitioner made an application to the competent authority way back in the year 2023, yet the said application is kept in abeyance and no decision has yet been taken thereupon. It is inconceivable that once the application is made asserting the right emanating from the statutory provision, the authority is still sitting over the same keeping the right of the parties in lurch.

3. Rule 63 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 confers a right on the lessee or holder of a prospecting license to claim refund of the excess amount, provided such claim is filed within six months from the date of the payment of such excess amount. Undeniably, the petitioner approached the authority by making an application within the time stipulated in first proviso to Rule 63 of the said OMMC Rules, 2016 and no decision has yet been taken thereupon.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the consent to operate is granted by the competent authority who has consumed nearly four months, which deprives the petitioner to use and utilize the usufructs from the said sand sairat and, therefore, the advance payment made will be regarded as an excess payment and, therefore, the authorities are under the statutory obligation to refund the said excess amount under the aforementioned provisions.

5. Our attention is drawn to the application dated 31^st March, 2023 annexed at Page-65 to the instant writ petition, which on a bare reading does not explicitly and/or lucidly contain such statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. However, we find the aforesaid statement to have been incorporated in the pleadings of the instant writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said submission is made de hors the pleadings.

6. Once a right is conferred and accrued to a person, mere poor drafting may not be projected to defeat such right and, therefore, the authority ought to have proceeded to decide the said application taking into account the statutory right created in the said rules. However, in order to avoid any obscurity to remain and keeping in mind the period of limitation provided for making an application for refund under Rule 63 of the said rules, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a supplementary application to the main application which would be treated as a part of the main application incorporating those facts as pleaded in the instant writ petition within two weeks from date.

7. In the event, such facts are brought through a supplementary procedure, the authorities shall decide the said application on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of filing of the said supplementary application.

8. For abundant precaution, we made it clear that we had no occasion to go into the merits of the contentions raised in the instant writ petition or in the said application and, therefore, it is open to the authorities to take a decision independent of any observation made hereinabove in accordance with law by providing proper reasons.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice (M.S. Raman)

Judge Sisira Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA

Reason: Au