Bhabani Shankar Mohanty vs. State Of Orissa

Held

The Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, did not deem it necessary to issue a separate direction to the opposite parties. The Court observed that if the petitioner faced any difficulty in transporting lawfully extracted sand, despite having paid royalty, GST, and other government dues, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned Tahasildar. The Tahasildar was expected to redress the petitioner's grievances in accordance with the law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with this observation. The Court did not explicitly decide on the entitlement to a permit but provided a procedural recourse for the petitioner to address any difficulties.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite parties to issue a permit for transporting sand outside the State of Odisha. The petitioner argued that they had lawfully extracted sand from a licensed quarry, paid royalty and GST, and should be allowed to transport it. The petitioner relied on a circular dated 21.12.2019 issued by the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which was purportedly in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. The State, through the learned Addl. Government Advocate, referred to clause-3 of the same office memorandum, stating that the State Government had directed Collectors to allow transportation of lawfully extracted sand outside the State, subject to proof of lawful excavation and payment of dues. The State further submitted that if the petitioner faced difficulties, they could approach the concerned Tahasildar.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the issuance of a permit to transport lawfully extracted sand outside the State of Odisha, considering the circular dated 21.12.2019 and the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiy. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they had fulfilled all legal requirements, including payment of royalty and GST, and therefore, should be granted the necessary permit for transportation. They relied on the circular dated 21.12.2019 as a basis for their entitlement. Revenue/State's argument: The State argued that the office memorandum dated 21.12.2019, issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment, already permits the transportation of lawfully extracted sand. They stated that the petitioner would need to produce proof of lawful excavation and payment of dues. The State also suggested that any difficulties could be addressed by approaching the Tahasildar.