IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.2823 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Janaki Kanta Mahapatra, Advocate along with Mr. Asutosh Mishra, Advocate -versus-

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

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

ORDER

17.02.2026 Order No.

01. 1. The petitioner has come up before this Court with the following prayer:

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other further writ and direct to extend the tenure of Lease i.e. Kotagarh Stone Quarry-1, Ranapur Tahasil, Dist.-Nayagarh, Odisha under Annexure-2 for a further period of 1 year w.e.f 31.03.2026. And/or to compensate the petitioner for loss sustained by him for such period within a stipulated period, which may fixed by this Hon'ble court.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. The petitioner, being successful bidder on participation in the auction in respect of Kotagarh Stone Quarry, Kotagarh, Tahasil: Ranpur in the district of Nayagarh on 07.10.2020, upon receipt of NOC from the Forest Department on 12.03.2025, executed a lease agreement with the State Government, on 07.06.2021 for a period of five years from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2026. The petitioner has received the transit pass from the Tahasildar, Ranapur on

27.11.2021.

3. On 08.05.2025, the petitioner submitted an application to the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Mineral, Nayagarh (opposite party No.4) for extension of period of lease for lifting of pending material since 2023-24, but the same is pending till date for consideration.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after execution of the lease agreement the petitioner could not immediately lift the quarry for the reason beyond his control inasmuch as certain legal paraphernalia were to be completed. The petitioner submitted a representation seeking extension of the period of lease for a further period of one year with effect from 31.03.2026. He placed reliance on the judgment dated 17.12.2025 rendered in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025.

5. Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed such contention of the petitioner and submitted that in absence of any specific rules in this regard, there cannot be extension of period of lease.

6. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties.

7. As is apparent from the record that the petitioner beseeches issue of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to extend the period of lease for the period which he could not carry on activity.

8. This Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra) desisted in compelling the opposite parties to extend the period of lease as sought for by the petitioner in absence of any express provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. This Court in the case of Suraj Agrawal Vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026 considering the plight of the petitioner therein for not being able to operate the quarry due to circumstances beyond his control observed as follows:

“4.4. Having the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions along with the decision of this Court as referred to above, this Court does not feel it apt to issue writ of mandamus to extend the tenure of lease deed as prayed for by the petitioner.

4.5. However, this Court is taken to Rule 64 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 which reads as follows:

“64. Power of the Government to relax the rules.—

The Government may, in the interest of mineral development, relax any of the provisions o