PRABODH MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed seeking to challenge the notice/letter No. 7816/6F dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure -13) as well as notice/letter No. 7718 dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure -22) issued/passed by opposite party No. 3 -Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai Division purportedly demanding payment of Net Present Value (for short, 'NPV') for the purpose of renewal of mining lease of the petitioner.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the brief facts suffice to be noted herein are that the petitioner was originally granted with mining lease for Iron, Manganese and Bauxite over an area of 333.063 hectares in Village Kalamang, Jaldihi, Sidimba and Tantigram (hereinafter referred to as 'KJST') under Bonai Sub -Division of Sundargarh district in favour of Sri S.N. Mohanty, the late father of the petitioner for a period of 20 years, i.e., from 20.01.1987 to 19.01.2007. On expiry of the said lease period, petitioner has applied for renewal of the said mining lease in Form -J on 06.12.2005 for another 20 years from 20.01.2007 to 19.01.2027 for a reduced area of 188.523 hectares surrendering the balance area of 144.540 hectares.

(3.) MR . Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submits that the factual premises on the basis of which the impugned demand came to be raised is wholly erroneous and baseless. The petitioner has never applied for the Renewal of Mining Lease (RML) of 333.063 hectares. As would be evident from application in Form -J under Annexure -2 dated 06.012.2005, total area the petitioner sought for renewal of mining lease in question is for 188.523 hectares. Based on such a renewal application, forest and environmental clearance were obtained from Union of India. Consequent upon receipt of the stage -II clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 vide letter dated 31.07.2009 under Annexure -6, petitioner was called upon for payment of the differential NPV in respect of KJST mines under Annexure -7. Consequently, petitioner has also deposited the additional demand of Rs. 3,48,920/ -, within the time stipulated therein. It is further submitted that the successor -DFO, who had issued the impugned letters under Annexures -13 and 22, is in effect seeking to review the decision taken by his predecessor in office and while the opposite party No. 3 has sought to saddle the petitioner with a huge financial liability, which the petitioner in law is not liable to bear. Therefore, Mr. Mohanty prays for quashing of the demand raised under Annexures -13 and 22.