IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2610 of 2026 Narendra Nath Singh …. Petitioner Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC CORAM:

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

ORDER

Order No. 17.02.2026

01. 1. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender from the intending bidders for an auction of the sairat sources, the petitioner was adjudged as the highest bidder and an agreement was entered into with the Government on 28^th December, 2020 for a period of five years.

2. Indubitably, the petitioner paid the royalty and other charges for the said financial year 2020-2021, but did not deposit the statutory amount for the rest of the financial years. The demand notice was issued followed by a reminder from the office of the Deputy Director of Mines, Khordha Circle, Khordha, but there was no response from the side of the petitioner. The show-cause notice was subsequently issued by the Mining Officer (In-charge), Khordha on 28^th November, 2024 followed by another show-cause notice dated 19^th December, 2024. All the aforesaid show-cause notices remained non-responsive and the authority thereafter proceeded to decide the issues so raised therein. Since there has been a violation of the statutory provision contained under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, „OMMC Rules‟), the lease executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the security money deposited was forfeited invoking the provision contained under Rule 27 (14) of the said OMMC Rules.

3. The petitioner has challenged the said order of cancellation primarily on the ground that keeping the application pending for renewal/extension of the lease period, the authority ought not to have proceeded to cancel the said lease. A further plea is taken that the cancellation of a lease is within the powers of the “Competent Authority” as defined in Rule 2(1)(f) of the OMMC Rules and, therefore, the Mining Officer (In-charge) is not empowered to take a decision under the aforesaid provision. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is per se illegal having passed by an authority not empowered in this regard and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Let us examine the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the statutory provisions contained in the said OMMC Rules. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules provides for cancellation of a lease and/or levy of the penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand, in the event, the “Competent Authority” after giving a notice of requisite time held that the lessee has committed a breach of any or more conditions of the lease deed. The “Competent Authority” is defined in Rule 2(1)(f) of the OMMC Rules to mean officer mentioned in column (4) of Schedule-IV. Schedule-IV appended to the said Rules indicates that in case of minor minerals other than specified minor minerals in relation to a quarry lease or a quarry permit when occurring within the village boundaries, the “Competent Authority” is the Mining Officer of the respective jurisdiction under the Steel and Mines Department. On a conjoint reading of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules with the definition of “Competent Authority”, it is manifest that the cancellation of lease or levy of penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand is conferred upon the “Competent Authority”. In the event, the lessee has committed a breach of any one or more conditions of the lease deed, the period of notice engulfed in the said Sub-Rule (7). It is intended to give an opportunity to the lessee to rectify the defects within such time; meaning thereby, if the breach is capable of being remedied, a further opportunity is given to the lessee to opt for the same.

5. Undoubtedly, the notices were issued to the petitioner, which remained non-responsive as the petitioner never approached the authority nor took any steps thereupon. The show-cause notices we