HARENDRA KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a lessee of Nuapada Decorative Stone Quarry, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 13/9/2021 under Annexure-7, by which the review petition filed under Rule 46 (1) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, by the petitioner, against the proceeding of the State Government dtd. 10/11/2020 rejecting the Application for renewal of mining lease ("RML application', for short) for Decorative Stone over an area of 8.575 Ha. in village Nuapada of Kalahandi district, has been rejected.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was granted with a lease for a period of 10 (ten) years with certain terms and conditions, pursuant to which a lease deed was executed on 16/8/2002. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State Government, for regulating the grant of mineral concessions in respect of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith, framed 'The Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004' (hereinafter referred to as 'OMCC Rules, 2004'). Chapter-III of the said Rules deals with grant of mining lease for decorative stone. Rule-15 of the said Rules, which deals with application for mining lease and its renewal, reads as under;-

(3.) Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before expiry of the lease period of 10 years, which was granted pursuant to lease deed dtd. 16/8/2002, though the petitioner filed RML Application on 16/8/2011 along with all relevant documents including document with regard to setting up industry, the same was not considered. It is contended that the RML Application of the petitioner should have been disposed of by the authority on the basis of the old Rules, i.e., OMMC Rules, 2004. But keeping the matter pending for years together, when the OMMC Rules, 2004 got superseded by the OMMC Rules, 2016, even though the petitioner is protected under the OMMC Rules, 2016, more particularly by introduction of Rule 8A by virtue of the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2018, having set up an industry on 19/8/2016 before Rule 8A came into force on 21/5/2018, the authority should have applied its mind in proper perspective and allowed the RML Application, instead of rejecting the same vide Order dtd. 10/11/2020 which got confirmed in Order dtd. 13/9/2021 passed in the review petition. It is further contended that had the RML Application been considered under the old OMMC Rules, 2004, where Rule 15 required that an application for a mining lease or its renewal shall be made to the State Government in Form-F in triplicate through Deputy Director/Mining Officer having jurisdiction and shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (xii), the same could have been allowed in favour of the petitioner. As because, clause (ix) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the OMMC Rules, 2004 required that attested copies of documents to establish that he has already set up or has definite plan for setting up an industry in the State for processing decorative stone. From sl.no.14 of the letter under Annexure-1, it is evident that the petitioner had a definite plan to set up an industry in the State for processing decorative stone. Therefore, it is contended that since the petitioner had satisfied the requirement as per the OMMC Rules, 2004, the authority should not have kept pending the application, instead of disposing of the same well within the time stipulated.