IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9346 of 2026 Madhusudhan Jena …. Petitioner Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anjan Patnaik, Advocate -versus-

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

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

ORDER

Order No. 07.04.2026

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.7, the Mining Officer, Balasore to extend the lease of the Sahupada and Dumuda sand quarry thereby allowing the Petitioner to operate the Sahupada and Dumuda sand quarry source for 2 years 9 months 11 days due to judicial interdiction by the Hon’ble NGT, Eastern Zone as well as per the statutory framework envisaged under Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, in the interest of justice;

And further be pleased to pass an order directing the Opposite Party Authorities to consider the representations made by the Petitioner under Annexure-14 series above taking into account of Rule

64 of the OMMC 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 21.02.2024 executed a quarry lease agreement under Rule 27(13) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, “OMMC Rules”) in respect of Sahupada and Dumuda Sand Quary 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already made a representation dated 13^th March, 2026 before the opposite party no.7-Deputy Director of Mines, Bhadrak 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 Sahupada and Dumuda Sand Quary was granted in favour of the petitioner by way of execution of lease deed on 21.02.2024 and, thereby the period of lease would expire on 13.12.2025. Nonetheless, the quarry could not be operated on account of pendency of Appeal No.18/2023/EZ before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata. The quarry could be operated only after the disposal of said appeal on 16.07.2024. It is submitted that before expiry of period stipulated in the lease agreement, the petitioner could carry on the quarry operation for seven months twenty three days. Such inability to operate could not be attributed to the petitioner.

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 sai