IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.3967 of 2026 Sukanti Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM:

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

ORDER

Order No. 17.02.2026

01. 1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer(s):-

“Under the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned Letter No.65 dated 13.01.2026 issued by the Mining Officer, Cuttack under Annexure- 4 of the Writ Petition shall not be quashed and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute, by quashing the said letter, declaring the decision taken by the Opposite Party No.2 not to renew the lease dead in favour of the Petitioner as illegal and arbitrary;

And consequently the Opposite Party No.2 be directed to renew the lease deed for Sairat Source namely Kathajodi River Sand, Mundamuhan for a further period of five years.

And pass any other order(S)/Writ(s)/Direction(s)

as deem fit and proper;

And for which Act of your kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

2. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tanmay Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on 18.02.2021 executed a quarry lease in respect of Kathajodi River Sand, Mundamuhan for a period of five years with approved Mining Plans and valid Environmental Clearance. Despite complying with obligations and paying dues, the petitioner could not extract the requisite quantity due to force majeure circumstances and restrictions imposed during pandemic. The petitioner’s representation dated 24.12.2025 seeking extension of period of lease was rejected by the Mining Officer, Cuttack on 13.01.2026, citing lack of statutory power. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court directed the authority to consider the representation seeking extension of lease period during which the sand sairat could not be operated by the lease holder in the cases of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.33235 of 2025 vide judgment dated 17.12.2025 and Suraj Agrawal vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C)

No.32657 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2026.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate though resisted grant of extension of period of lease due to absence of power under the statute, however conceded that case of certain lease holders were considered by the competent authority.

4. Considered the submission advanced by the counsel for respective parties, it is admitted fact on record that the tenure of the lease in respect of River Sand Quarry at Mundamuhan was granted in favour of the petitioner by way of execution of lease deed on

18.02.2021 and, thereby the period of lease would expire on

18.02.2026.

5. Perusal of judgment dated 17.12.2025 in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty (supra), it is revealed that this Court has made the following observations:-

“7.5. ***It was all along the stand of the State in the said report that the prayer for extension and/or renewal of a period in which the order of the NGT was operative cannot be granted in absence of any statutory Rules or the policy having taken in this regard and in pursuit of determining the same, the apex Court [Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 93], in unequivocal terms held that if such a deprivation is shown, which cannot be attributed to the conduct of a mining leaseholder, the law permits the refund of the security deposit and the advanced royalty deposited by him in the following:

„43. We, thus, find that the appropriate course of action to be adopted in this case cannot be to extend the lease for the obstructed period but to direct that the security