IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.984 of 2026 Pankaj Kumar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, 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. 21.04.2026

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

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner prays before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate direction/(s) and Writ/(s) to the Opposite Parties more particularly the Opposite Party No.6, the Mining Officer, Balasore to extend the lease of the Ambakuruchi Sand Quarry thereby allowing the petitioner to operate the Ambakuduchi sand quarry source for 2 years and 5 days as per the statutory framework envisaged under Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, in the interest of justice;

And may pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper;

And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray;”

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on 14.12.2020 executed a quarry lease in respect of Ambakuduchi Sand Quarry 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 administrative exigencies for certain periods and also restrictions imposed during pandemic. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already made a representation dated 22^nd December, 2025 before the opposite party no.7 for extension of lease period and the same is still pending for consideration.

2.1. It is further 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 Ambakuduchi Sand Quarry was granted in favour of the petitioner by way of execution of lease deed on

14.12.2020.

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 deposit, if not already refunded, should be refunded and the amount deposited by the appellants/leaseholders as advance royalties to the respondent State be also paid back to them along with something more.’

7.6. A distinction can be drawn between an involuntary act and a vo