Sanchayita Lahkar

The Orissa High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has held that a lease cancellation order passed by a Mining Officer (In-charge) under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity, as the Mining Officer falls within the definition of a "Competent Authority" under the said Rules. The Court was dealing with a challenge to the cancellation of a sairat source lease, where the lessee had defaulted on statutory royalty payments across multiple financial years despite repeated notices. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court observed that administrative functioning cannot be rendered dysfunctional on account of a post falling vacant, and that powers lawfully conferred upon an in-charge officer during such an interregnum carry full statutory validity.

The petitioner, adjudged as the highest bidder in a government tender for auction of sairat sources, entered into an agreement with the Government on 28th December, 2020 for a period of five years. While the petitioner paid royalty and other charges for the financial year 2020-2021, statutory amounts for the remaining financial years were not deposited. Demand notices and reminders were issued by the Deputy Director of Mines, Khordha Circle, to which the petitioner did not respond.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Electing RERA Remedy For Same Cause Of Action

Show-cause notices were subsequently issued by the Mining Officer (In-charge), Khordha on 28th November, 2024 and 19th December, 2024, which also remained non-responsive. Finding a violation of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, the authority cancelled the lease and forfeited the security deposit under Rule 27(14) of the OMMC Rules.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation on two grounds: first, that the authority ought not to have proceeded with cancellation while a renewal/extension application was pending; and second, that the power to cancel a lease vests exclusively in the "Competent Authority" as defined under Rule 2(1)(f) of the OMMC Rules, and that the Mining Officer (In-charge) was not empowered to exercise such power. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was per se illegal having been passed by an authority not empowered in that regard.

The Court examined the statutory provisions of the OMMC Rules to determine whether the Mining Officer (In-charge) fell within the definition of a "Competent Authority." On the conjoint reading of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 51 with the definition of "Competent Authority," the Court stated: "On a conjoint reading of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules with the definition of 'Competent Authority', it is manifest that the cancellation of lease or levy of penalty not exceeding rupees fifty thousand is conferred upon the 'Competent Authority'."

On the continuous default by the petitioner, the Court recorded: "There appears to be a continuous breach of the terms and conditions embodied in the lease deed and, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the action of the authority in issuing a notice contemplating to cancel the lease deed."

On the question of whether a Mining Officer (In-charge) could exercise the powers of a Competent Authority, the Court stated: "The moment the Mining Officer is included within the definition of a 'Competent Authority', a power is vested upon him to take a decision in relation to any of the provisions contained in the said Rules, which confers the power upon the 'Competent Authority'."

On the principle of administrative continuity, the Court observed: "There cannot be a vacuum in functioning of the department, if the same is created either by way of demitting the office, being transferred or getting promotion as the powers entrusted to a particular officer is to be discharged through another officer. The functioning of the department through a particular officer cannot be kept in limbo and no decision could be taken thereupon, which is not recognized in an administrative jurisprudence."

The Court further stated: "Once the post is vacant, the duties, responsibilities and the functioning of such post are to be ensured through a competent person upon conferment of the powers in the interregnum and if such powers are exercised, it cannot invite illegality."

Also Read: S.133 Contract Act | Guarantor's Liability Capped At Originally Sanctioned Loan Amount; Surety Not Bound By Borrower's Excess Withdrawals Made Without Consent : Supreme Court

On conformity with statutory intent, the Court recorded:"The moment the duties, functions and the powers are conferred upon the officer to discharge as a Mining Officer, the order passed by such officer conforms to the statutory and/or legislative intent."

The Court directed: "We, thus, do not find that the order impugned in the instant writ petition is passed by the authority bereft of such power or not in conformity with the definition of a 'Competent Authority'. The writ petition, thus, fails and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties: Ms. Biswabara Dash, Assistant Solicitor to Court (ASC)

Case Title: Narendra Nath Singh v. State of Odisha and Others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 2610 of 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman