IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.403 of 2026 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

***

Smt. Lili Meher …. Petitioner -Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Ms.Biswabara Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

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

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 17^th March, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.-

1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ petition pertains to the Demand Notice dated 9^th June, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer, Nuapada (opposite party No.7) vide Annexure-1 upon the petitioner claiming the outstanding dues for the Financial Years 2022-23 to 2025-26 towards the Royalty and other dues as the quarry operation remained idle for more than a continuous period of six months which is violative of Rule 32 and Rule 33 (15) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, ‘the OMMC Rules”) and the amendment having brought in the meantime.

2. The primary contention against the said Demand Notice is founded upon an assertion that the payment of Royalty can only be demanded if any minor mineral is removed or consumed by him or his agent, the manager and employees or the contractor from the leased area. According to the petitioner, if the quarry remained non-operational, it does not attract the consummation and/or removal of the sand, and, therefore, the incidence of payment of Royalty has not germinated. Such being the question involved in the instant writ petition, which, in our opinion, strikes at the root of the issues and of a legal nature, it would be an idle exercise to invite the parties to exchange the affidavits.

3. The facts are undisputed and can be reasonably gathered and/or inferred from the language and expressions used in the said Demand Notice. Before we proceed to decide the point urged before us, it would be relevant to quote the said Demand Notice in extenso, which runs thus:

“Office of the Mining Officer, Nuapada At: Sirtol, P.O.: Nuapada, District: Nuapada, PIN: 766105 E-mail:-mo.nuapada@gmail.com No.664/Minor Mines Date:09.06.2025 To Smt. Lili Meher, Wife of Debeswadatta Meher, At/P.O./P.S.: Sinapali, District: Nuapada, Pin: 766 108.

Sub.: Demand Notice for Deposition of Outstanding dues for the F.Y.2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 & 2025-26 in respect of Gandabahali Sand Quarry.

Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am to say that, you were instructed to deposit the outstanding dues towards Royalty and other dues for the F.Y.2022-23 to 2025-26. You have also kept your quarry operation in idle for more than a continuous period of six months violating the Rule 32 and 33 (15) of OMMC Rule 2016 and Amendment Rule 2023.

The detail of pending dues against Quarry are as follows:-

So, you are hereby show caused for not depositing the aforesaid dues which violates the Rule 32 and 33 (15) of OMMC Rule 2016 and you are also directed to deposit the same within 07 days from the receipt of this letter positively failing which your lease will be liable for cancellation under Rule 33 (5) of OMMC Rule

2016.

This may be treated as Top Priority.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Mining Officer, Nuapada”

4. The above quoted Demand Notice indicates that the amount so demanded on the pretext of the outstanding dues includes within its folds - Royalty and the other dues relating to the financial years mentioned therein. The penultimate paragraph of the said notice exposits that the aforesaid dues become payable for violation having committed by the petitioner as envisaged in Rule 32 and Rule 33 (15) of the OMMC Rules, 2016. Such being an impression gathered by this Court, on a meaningful reading of the contents of the said noti