NIRMALA KANTI PRASAD PANDYA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31548 of 2025
Nirmala Kanti Prasad
Pandya and others
Petitioners
… ...
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties
... …
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with
Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA
W.P.(C) No.31551 of 2025
Nirmala Pandya and others Petitioners
… ...
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties
... …
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with
Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA
W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025
Petitioners
… ...
Nirmala Kanti Prasad
Pandya and others
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ... … Opp. Parties
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 1 of 35
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate with
Miss Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. D. N. Lenka, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of Hearing:22.01.2026, 19.03.2026, 23.04.2026,
11.05.2026, 12.05.2026 & 13.05.2026
Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1 . All the writ applications involve common questions of
law arising out of similar set of facts, are taken up together
and have been heard at length.
W.P. (C) No.31548 of 2025 has been filed by four
petitioners challenging the Certificate Case No.30 of 2018
initiated before the Certificate Officer by the department of
Mining, Govt. of Odisha for recovery of mining dues under
the Odisha Public Demands Recovery (OPDR) Act and the
warrant of sale dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure-10) issued
under the said Act. The prayer made in the writ petition is
reproduced herein:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018
and all consequential proceedings starting from
determination/confirmation of demand amount vide
order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and
11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 2 of 35
warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at
Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated
17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10;
B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased
lessees without substitution and notice as void and
non-est in law;
C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. W.P.(C) No.31551 of 2025 has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the self-same Certificate Case No.30
of 2018 as well as the warrant of sale. Prayer made in the
writ petition is reproduced herein:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018
and all consequential proceedings starting from
determination/confirmation of demand amount vide
order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and
11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of
warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at
Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated
17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10;
B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased
lessees without substitution and notice as void and
non-est in law;
C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025 has been filed by the
petitioner challenging Certificate Case No.30 of 2018 and
the amount of demand vide orders dated 16.07.2019
(Annexure-7), 11.04.2025 (Annexure-8) and warrant of sale
by orders dated 06.09.2025 and 17.09.2025 (Annexure-9 &
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 3 of 35
10) under the OPDR Act. The prayer made in the writ
petition is reproduced herein:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ/order quashing Certificate Case No.30 of 2018
and all consequential proceedings starting from
determination/confirmation of demand amount vide
order dated 06.07.2019, as at Annexure-7, and
11.04.2025, as at Annexure-8, and issuance of
warrant of sale vide order dated 06.09.2025 as at
Annexure-9 including the warrant of sale dated
17.09.2025 as at Annexure-10;
B. Declare the proceedings initiated against deceased
lessees without substitution and notice as void and
non-est in law;
C. Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
The brief facts and the proceedings involving the
parties leading to filing of the writ petition.
4. The orders impugned in the writ applications are
identical; the brief facts leading to the present Writ
Applications are: Certificate Case No.30/2018 has been
initiated by the mining authority before the Certificate
Officer. Demand raised by the mining authority relates to
the demand notice dated 02.09.2017 issued by the Deputy
Director of Mines, Joda Circle demanding sum of
Rs.86,41,20,698/-(Rupees Eighty Six Crore Forty One Lakh
Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight) as the
‘compensation price’ U/s.21(5) of the Mines and Minerals
Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957.
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 4 of 35
4.1 On 20.07.2018 notices were issued U/s.6 of the OPDR
Act by the Certificate Authority as the Certificate Case
No.30/2018 was initiated before the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate-cum-Certificate Authority, Keonjhar. Before the
Certificate authority Sri Drevendra Prasad Hirjee Pandya
(D.P.H. Pandya) appeared and filed vakalatnama
represented through his learned Advocate. Sri D.P.H.
Pandya filed his preliminary show cause affidavit on
24.01.2018 indicating that the certificate debtor mentioned
in the Certificate Case who is the noticee had passed away
since 07.02.1989, the demand notice that was issued by the
mining authority does not name any partner or any legal
heirs.
4.2 The contention raised was that the certificate
proceeding was initiated against a person, mentioning his
name in the notice who had by then passed away almost
twenty nine years back.
4.3 Thereafter before the Certificate Officer, the certificate
holder/Deputy Director of Mines appeared and stated that
‘H.G. Pandya and others’ is a partnership firm of ten
partners.
4.4 As stated by the petitioners in the writ petition Sri D.P.
H. Pandya was instructed by the Certificate Officer to inform
all the partners. To substantiate his submissions, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order
sheet maintained in the certificate proceeding. It is further
stated & submitted that no notice was ever issued to any of
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 5 of 35
the partners of the firm nor any notice was issued to legal
heirs of the deceased.
5. Apparently, after the judgment was delivered by the
Common
Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014:
1
Cause on 02.08.2017, the demand notice was issued on
02.09.2017.
6. The impugned Annexure-7 to the writ application is
order dated 06.07.2019 passed in Certificate Case No.30 of
2018 by the Collector, Keonjhar. The said order is
reproduced herein (the underlined portions are considered
by this Court for the purpose of adjudication):
“The Certificate Debtor is present through his learned
Advocate but has taken no steps to deposit certificate
amount worth Rs.92,66,21,483/- in spite of several
opportunities given to him for this purpose. It is seen
that H.G. Pandya and others is a partnership firm and
there are ten partners who are well conversant and
fully aware that they have to deposit the above
amount towards compensation u/s.21(5) of MMDR Act,
1957 for production of mine without E.C./Excess
production of mine without adequate E.C. This
Company is still exist consisting of 10 No. of inherited
partners. Hence Certificate amount worth
Rs.92,66,21,483/- is hereby confirmed. Last and
final opportunity is provided to the partners of H.G.
Pandya and others (Partnership firm) to deposit the
entire certificate amount before the next date
positively, failing which warrant of attachment of
property and sale of property shall be issued
thereafter.”
7. Annexure-8 to the writ application under challenge is
the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Certificate Case No.30
1
(2017) 9 SCC 499
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 6 of 35
of 2018, which is reproduced herein (the underlined
portions are considered by this Court and deliberated upon):
“The case is taken up today. Verified the case
record. Seen that, the hearing of the case was fixed to
Dt.18.04.2020. Both parties were absent. The list of
legal heirs of H.G. Pandya is received from Deputy
Director Mines, Joda Circle, Keonjhar.
Hence it is substituted the CDr. By his wife
Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya and others as detailed
below:
1.Sri Devendraprasad H. Pandya S/o Late Hirjee
Dhanjee Pandya
2.Smt. Bhanumati H. Pandya W/o Late Hariprasad H
Pandya
3. Nita Kumari H. Pandya D/o Late Hariprasad H
Pandya
4.Kumari Gayatri H. Pandya D/o Late Hariprasad H
Pandya
5.Tushar Kumar H. Pandya S/o. Late Hariprasad H
Pandya
6. Sri Nirmal Kumar H. Pandya S/o.late Hariprasad H
Pandya
7. Smt. Nirmal Kumar H. Pandya S/o Late
Hariprasad H Pandya
Sl No 1 to 6 All are from At/Po/Ps-Barbil, Dist-
Keonjhar, Odisha
8. Smt. Pia Pandya, W/o Late Hargovind Pandya
9.Kumari Reshmi Pandya, D/o Late Hargovind
Pandya
Sl No 07 and 8 (At:91, Park Road, Po-Jamsedpur, Dist-
Singhbhum, Jharkhand)
Issue notice to the CDr. In Form-3 to file show
cause by the next date fixed for hearing towards
realization of Certificate amount. Ask. CHr and Govt.
Pleader, Keonjhar to be present during hearing of the
case on the next date positively failing which action
( sic )
will be taken as per law.”
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 7 of 35
8. Annexure-9 under challenge is another order dated
06.09.2025 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in Certificate
Case No.30 of 2018.
“The case is taken up today. Verified the case record.
It is seen that the matter was earlier fixed for hearing
on 16.08.2025, which could not be held due to mass
leave of the Revenue Ministerial Staff of Odisha from
Dt.11.08.2025 to 25.09.2025.
Further, it is also perused that, the Certificate
amount of Rs.92,66,21,483/- (Rupees Ninety-Two
Crore Sixty-Six Lakh Twenty-One Thousand Four
Hundred Eighty-Three only) was confirmed on
06.07.2019 in presence of the learned advocate for
the Certificate Debtor, The Certificate Debtor has been
given sufficient opportunity to deposit the said
amount, but not steps have been taken by them till
date. On 01.02.2020, the DDM, Joda was instructed
to submit the list of movable and Immovable
properties along with details of Bank Accounts of
each partner of the Certificate Debtor for initiation of
warrant of attachment and sale proceedings.
Accordingly, the DDM, Joda submitted the landed
property list of the partners of the Certificate Debtor.
Despite lapse of several dates fixed for
hearing, neither the Certificate Debtor nor his
partners have taken any steps for deposit of the
Certificate amount.
In view of the above, Issue warrant for sale
property of CDr for realization of the Certificate
amount at earliest.”
9. Annexure-10 to the writ petition under challenge is the
warrant of sale of property in the statutory Form-10 as
provided in Rule 24 of the OPDR Act, 1962, the office letter
issued by the Collector dated 17.09.2025, which is scanned
and reproduced in the next page:
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 8 of 35
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 9 of 35
10. The impugned letter at Annexure-10 gives the list of
properties in the name of Smt. Nirmala Kanti Prasad Pandya
the petitioner No.1 that would be auctioned for realization of
the amount due.
All the annexures 7 to 9 indicated above are
same/identical in all the writ applications. Annexure-10
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 10 of 35
relates to the property of a individual noticee in the OPDR
proceeding.
11. W.P.(C) No.31548 of 2025 is taken up as the lead case
by referring to the pleadings, facts and issues pleaded
therein by the petitioners and the opposite parties in
response.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Palit
along with Ms. A. Pradhan has been heard extensively on
22.01.2026 and 23.04.2026.
The learned Advocate Mr. D.N. Lenka, Additional
Government Advocate has been heard extensively on
19.03.2026, 23.04.2026, 11.05.2026 and 12.05.2026.
12. I.A. No.23242 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C) No.31548
of 2025, I.A. No.23245 of 2025 arising out of W.P.(C)
No.31551 of 2025 and I.A. No.23249 of 2025 arising out of
W.P.(C) No.31554 of 2025 have been filed by State-opposite
party for vacation of interim orders which were passed
earlier in all the Writ Applications when notices were issued
to the opposite parties by the Co-ordinate Bench .
Direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. arising
out of ‘Common Cause’
All the I.A.(s) have been filed by the OP/State enclosing
copy of the order dated 10.12.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2025 in W.P.(C)
No.114 of 2014.
The said Miscellaneous Application was filed, arising
out of final judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 in W.P.(C)
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 11 of 35
No.114 of 2014: Common Cause v. Union of India and
others ( supra ). By the said order the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have directed thus:
“1. We are informed that several writ petitions
bearing W.P.(C) Nos.31548, 31551, 31554 of 2025
and W.P.(C) Nos.9264, 9263 and 12358 of 2024 are
pending before the high Court, wherein orders
passed in recovery proceedings have been
challenged and stay obtained.
2. Since public revenue to a substantial extent is
involved, we grant liberty to the State of Odisha to
move an application before the Chief Justice of High
th
Court of Odisha by 19 December, 2025, with a
request to assign all such writ petitions to a
dedicated Bench for final disposal by the end of
March, 2026.
3. In the event, the Bench is disabled from deciding
st
the writ petitions finally by 31 March, 2026, at
least, the prayers made by the State of Odisha for
vacation/alteration/modification of such interim
orders of stay may be considered and decided by
the Bench.
4. We also observe that in such of the cases where
either there is no stay granted by the High Court or
any other appropriate Court, the State of Odisha
shall proceed in accordance with law for recovery of
the outstanding dues.
5. Further status report shall be filed on or before
02.04.2026.
6. Re-list the Miscellaneous Application and the
connected matters in the second week of April,
2026.”
13. Taking note of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the matters have been listed and are taken up by this
Bench specially constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice by
order dated 20.01.2026 in the administrative side.
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 12 of 35
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
14 . It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioners’ that all the writ petitions i.e.: W.P. (C) No.31548
of 2025, W.P. (C) No.31551 of 2025 and W.P. (C) No.31554
of 2025 invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
challenge the demand of ‘mining dues’ determined U/s.21(5)
of the MMDR Act as well as the ‘recovery proceedings’
initiated by the mining authority resorting to the Odisha
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, as the petitioners
contend:
violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under
the Constitution of India to fair procedure/reasonable
opportunity before they are saddled with civil consequences;
violation of fundamental right to equal treatment before law,
right to procedural fairness in the proceedings initiated
against them and their right against arbitrariness.
15. Submissions are that the petitioners were not given
any opportunity: no prior notice was given before
ascertaining/determining the demand(s) made by the
Mining authority U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. The
petitioners were not substituted in the pending proceeding
as the legal heirs of the past/earlier lease holders and no
notice was issued to them; rather without any notice they
have been proceeded against by the mining authority.
There is no notice of substitution to substitute the
petitioners as legal heirs for the demands to be raised
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 13 of 35
against them and the demand notices issued by the
Department of Mines were not served on them.
It is submitted that such action of the authority is
violative of the right of the petitioners to pre-decisional
hearing in matters involving civil consequence and their
right to defend against demand of revenue/fine/compulsory
exaction by the State, guaranteed by the Constitution of
India.
16. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioner that the power of attorney (POA) executed in 2010
as well as 2012 both, are for the purpose of entering into an
agreement with the State regarding renewal of the mining
lease. The POAs cannot be interpreted to be anything more
than that is reflected in the power of attorney itself.
17. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the power of attorney (marked as Annexure-D/4
i.e. annexed to the reply to the rejoinder filed by the State),
the contents thereof are reproduced:
“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that, we,
“JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES”, (previously
known as – ‘Hargovind Pandya & Others’), having its
head office at- Gua, P.O./P.S.- Gua, Dist.- West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand, and Branch office at- Barbil,
p.s.- Barbil, Dist.-Keonjhar, and at –Jajang, p.s.-Joda,
Dist.- Keonjhar, Odisha, represented by its partners-
1) Mrs. Pia Pandya …
2) Miss Rashmi Pandya …
3)
Miss Payal Pandya …
4)
Smt. Nirmalakanti Prasad Pandya …
5) Smt. Bhanumati Hari Prasad Pandya …
6) Kumari Nita Hariprasad Pandya …
7) Tusar Hariprasad Hirji Pandya
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 14 of 35
8)
Nirmal Kumar Hariprasad Hirji Pandya …
9) Kumari Gayatri Hariprasad Hirji Pandya …,
do hereby constitute, nominate and appoint to one Shri
Devendra Prasad Hirji Pandya … …, who is one of the
party/partner of the above noted firm as would be true
and lawful attorney holder for us and on our behalf, to
do any or all of the following acts, deeds and things :-...
He places emphasis on the words ‘for us and on our
behalf’ (underlined above) to contend that the POA cannot
be construed, as suggested by learned AGA for opposite
party-State, to enable the POA holder to ‘receive notice’ for
‘firm’ or ‘partners’ in a proceeding U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act
or a proceeding under the OPDR Act which are initiated
much after the POAs were executed and anyhow not
contemplated in the POAs.
18. The learned Sr. Advocate places emphasis on the
contents of the power of attorney dated 11.04.2012 to
submit that it does not authorize the POA to do any of the
Acts as argued on behalf of opposite parties, other than
those specified at internal page-5, which is reproduced
herein:
“1) To appear before competent Mining
authority/Deptt., I.B.M. authority, concerned D.D.M.,
Mining office, Forest Deptt., Sales tax and/or income
tax Deptt., Director of Mines, Odisha, Bhubaneswar
and/or any other authority/office of Govt. (State &
Central) and to deals all official
dealing/correspondence in such office in intending to
obtaining any Permission, Mining Lease, renewal of
Mining Lease, and other Licences, sales tax
clearance, Mining dues clearance certificate and/or
any other permission, Licence, approval etc. for and
on our behalf. To
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 15 of 35
2) To sign, and swear affidavit, writ petition,
Vakalatnama, any kind of petition, documents
and/or all other necessary documents, papers etc.
and to file them before such competent office,
authority including the aforesaid office/deptt. i.e.
Mining authority, office, I.B.M., Forest Deptt., Sales
tax, income tax deptt., Director of Mines, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, Mines & Steel Deptt., Govt. of India
etc. in intending to obtaining/renewal of Mining
Lease, any other approval, permission, clearance etc.
respectively for and on our behalf.
3) To deals all official correspondence, communication
in such office of State and Central Government for the
aforesaid facts and purposes as per requirement for
and on our behalf.
4. To take back any documents, permission, renewal
of Mining Lease, permission, licence, sales tax,
clearance certificate, income tax up to date returns
file, MDCC, clearance from forest Deptt., and/or all
such requirement/documents/permission/License
etc. for and on our behalf in intending to business
relation and necessity for and on behalf of said
JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES.
5) To appoint my advocate, pleader and/or Legal
practitioners and to compound any case as pending
against the said above named firm and/or as arise in
future.
6) To represent us before such office, authority, Court,
competent authority/Deptt. of Govt. (State & Central
as and when required for the said facts and
purposes.
GENERALLY TO DO ALL ACTS, deeds and things
shall and will be done, executed & performed by our
attorney holder, as we were done, executed &
performed by us, if we were personally present so.”
IT IS FURTHER DOES HEREBY declared that, our
attorney holder will be done, executed & performed
all such lawful acts, deeds and things as per
requirement for the business relation of said above
named firm- i.e. Jajang Iron & Manganese Mines,
under & by virtue of this power of Attorney.
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 16 of 35
IT IS FURTHER DOES HEREBY declared that, As we
hereby authorized & empowered to the attorney
holder above named, the said attorney holder –
Devendra Prasad Hirji Pandya will, execute &
perform and cause to be done, executed and
performed all such acts, deeds and things in
intending to obtaining/renewal of Mining Lease,
forest clearance, any permission/licence from Mining
& Steel authority, Govt. of India, Sales tax, tax
clearance, income tax return file up to date, approval
from any other authority, I.B.M. and /or any other
such competent authority of State & Central Govt.,
concerned D.D.M., Director of Mines, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar etc. in connection to business relation
and requirement of the said above named firm i.e.
JAJANG IRON & MANGANESE MINES.”
19. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioners that none of covenants reproduced above,
contained in the power of attorney, would indicate that the
nine persons giving power of attorney had waived their
right to be issued and receive notice by the mining
authority before the authority determines the dues
U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act and saddles the demand of money
on the lessees nor it can be interpreted that the necessity
of giving notice to all the nine individuals who are lessees
and are ‘partners’ in the firm can be by-passed.
It is emphasized by the learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioners that the power of attorney holder was never
given the power to receive notice on behalf of the
partnership firm or the individual lessees those formed the
partnership firm.
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 17 of 35
20. The learned Sr. Advocate relies on the covenant at
paragraph-7 of the lease deed indicating notices, to argue
that the lessees never had waived their respective rights to
receive notice. Said paragrpah-7 is reproduced herein:
“7. Every notice by these presents required to be given
to lessees shall be given in writing to such person
resident on the said lands as the lessees may appoint
for the purpose of receiving such notices and if there
shall have been no such appointment then every such
notice shall be sent to the lessees by registered post
addressed to the lessees at the address recorded in
this lease or at such other address in India as the
lessees may from time to time in writing to the State
Government designate for the receipt of notices and
every such service shall be deemed to be proper and
valid service upon the lessees and shall not be
questioned or challenged by them.”
Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties
21. In response to the submissions of the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners regarding sufficiency of notice
before determination of the demand raised by demand
notice dated 02.09.2017, that the notices were not issued
to them by the Deputy Director Mines, Joda Circle, it is
contended by the learned AGA that notices have been
issued to the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the
firm/all the lessees, therefore, the notice has to be treated
to be sufficient.
He refers to the lease deed in Form ‘K’ dated
03.02.1995 (Annexure-C/3 to the additional affidavit by
the opposite parties) to submit that lease deed has been
signed by the constituted attorney-Kantiprasad H. Pandya
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 18 of 35
as power of attorney holder of Hargovind Pandya and
others, for all the lessees; on behalf of the Governor of the
State of Odisha, the Collector, Keonjhar has signed the
deed. He refers to Annexure-D/4 to the reply to the
rejoinder filed by the State to show Sri Debendra Prasad
Hirji Pandya has signed on behalf of the lessees.
He submits that sufficiency of notice on the lessees is
achieved by serving the notice upon PoA holder Sri D.P.H.
Pandya.
22. To support his contentions regarding the implications
of power of attorney being executed by the lessees, the
learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon
State of
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2
Rajasthan & others v. Basant Nahata and Nagubai
3
Ammal & others v. B.Shama Rao & others .
23. On being asked regarding the interpretation of
covenants of POA in the context of Section 4 of the
Partnership Act, 1932 the learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that there cannot be any two opinions
regarding interpretation of Section 4 but he relies on
4
Ashutosh v. State of Rajasthan and others from
which, paragraphs-12 and 13 are relied upon by him and
are reproduced below:
“12. Section 24 is based on the principle that as a
partner stands as an agent in relation to the firm, a
notice to the agent is tantamount to the principles and
2
AIR 2005 SC 3401
3
AIR 1956 SC 593
4
(2005) 7 SCC 308
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 19 of 35
vice versa. As a general rule, notice to a principal is
notice to all his agents; and notice to an agent of
matters connected with his agency is notice to his
principal.
13. Under Section 25, the liability of the partners is
joint and several. It is open to a creditor of the firm to
recover the debt from any one or more of the partners.
Each partner shall be liable as if the debt of the firm
has been incurred on his personal liability.”
24. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State with much emphasis that the State
has entered into a lease agreement with one Sri Kanta
Prasad Pandya by lease deed dated 03.02.1995. He relies
on annexure to additional affidavit (Annexure-C/3) filed by
the opposite party-State through the Deputy Director of
Mines. The lease deed reflects thus:
“FORM K
MODEL FORM OF MINING LEASE
(see rule 31)
rd
THIS INDENTURE made this 3 day of February,
1995, between the Governor of Orissa, the President
of India (hereinafter referred to as the “State
Government” which expression shall where the
context so admits be deemed to include the
successors and assigns) of the one party and
(1)Shri Kantiprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirjee
Dhanjee Pandya, aged about 54 years, (2)Shri
Devendraprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirji Dhanji
Pandya aged about 37 years, (3) Smt. Bhanumati H.
Pandya, Widow of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged
about 51 years, (4) Nita Kumari H. Pandya, Daughter
of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 28 years,
(5) Kumari Gayatri H. Pandya, Daughter of Late
Hariprasad H. Pandya aged about 15 years, (6) Shri
Tushar Kumar H. Pandya, Son of Late Hariprasad H.
Pandya aged about 26 years, (7) Shri Nirmal Kumar
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 20 of 35
H. Pandya, Son of Late Hariprasad H. Pandya aged
about 24 years, Occupation:- Mining business, all of
residence At:- Barbil, P.O.:- Barbil, P.S. :- Barbil,
District :- Keonjhar in the state of Orissa, (8) Smt.
Piya Pandya, Widow of Late Hargovind Pandya aged
about 43 years, (9) Kumari Reshmi Pandya, Daughter
of Late Hargovind Pandya aged about 17 years, (10)
Kumari Payal Pandya, Daughter of Late Hargovind
Pandya aged about 11 years, all of residence At :-
9A, Park Road, P.O.:- Jamshedpur, District :-
Singhbhum in the state of Bihar (Name of person with
address and occupation), Occupation:- Mining
business (hereinafter referred to as “the lessees”
which expression shall where the context so admits
be deemed to include their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives and their
permitted assigns) of the other part represented by
Shri Kantiprasad H. Pandya, Son of Late Hirjee
Dhanjee Pandya aged about 54 years by occupation:-
Mining business, residence of Barbil, P.O.:- Barbil,
P.S. :- Barbil, District:- Keonjhar in the state of Orissa,
the power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Hargovind
Pandya and Others. … …”
Referring to Form-‘K’ reproduced above it is submitted
by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the
State has entered into agreement with the power of attorney
holder on behalf of all the lessees.
25. It is further submitted that the notice to all the lessees
is in terms of Section 24 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as
notice is to one of the partners.
Section 24 is reproduced herein:
“ 24. Effect of notice to acting partner .—Notice
to a partner who habitually acts in the business of
the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the
firm operates as notice to the firm, except in the case
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 21 of 35
of a fraud on the firm committed by or with the
consent of that partner.”
26. Apart from the contention raised by the learned AGA
that Shri DPH Pandya received notice on behalf of
partnership firm, in the alternative it is submitted by the
learned AGA that the said notice is to the ‘partnership firm’
which had been granted the mining lease, so sufficient on
all the partners.
27. The learned AGA relies on Section 6 of The Indian
Partnership Act, 1932, which is reproduced herein:
6. Mode of determining existence of
“
partnership. – In determining whether a group of
persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or
is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the
real relation between the parties, as shown by all
relevant facts taken together.
Explanation 1. – The sharing of profits or of gross
returns arising from property by persons holding a
joint or common interest in that property does not of
itself make such persons partners.
Explanation 2. – The receipt by a person of a share of
the profits of a business, or of a payment contingent
upon the earning of profits or varying with the profits
earned by a business, does not of itself make him a
partner with the persons carrying on the business;
And in particular, the receipt of such share or
payment-
(a) by a lender of money to persons engaged or about to
engage in any business,
(b) by a servant or agent as remuneration,
(c) by the widow or child of a deceased partner, as
annuity, or
(d) by a previous owner or part owner of the business,
as consideration for the sale of the goodwill or share
thereof,
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 22 of 35
does not of itself make the receiver a partner with the
persons carrying on the business.”
In the context of the Section 6 of Act, 1932, it is
submitted by the learned AGA that the legal heirs of the
deceased Sri Kanta Prasad Hirji Pandya i.e. his wife and
children have been admitted to the partnership firm and
also in the profit sharing. He refers to Annexure-5 of the
writ petition to contend that the said power of attorney,
though is limited in language, the subsequent power of
attorney as at Annexure-D/4(annexed to the reply to
rejoinder) is in language wider in ambit, which go to show
that notice to the power of attorney holder would be
sufficient to the individual lessees/partners.
28. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that the
POA executed in 2010 is not ‘registered’, is only ‘notarized’
and cannot be relied upon by the authority to develop the
argument of sufficiency of notice, the learned AGA refers to
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Syed Abdul
5
Khader vs. Rami Reddy , paragraph-17, that is
reproduced herein:
“17. Incidentally in this connection it was urged that
the power to purchase and sell land and to execute
documents and to offer them for registration does not
include the power to sell agricultural land. This has
only to be mentioned to be rejected because the
expression “lands” would include both agricultural
and non-agricultural land.”
5
AIR 1979 SC 553
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 23 of 35
29. Learned AGA refers to Section 84 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponding to Section 85 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to submit that even
notarized power of attorney can be relied upon.
The learned AGA, further relies on the provision
contained in Section 229 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
said Section 229 provides thus:
“ 229.Consequences of notice given to agent. —
Any notice given to or information obtained by the
agent, provided it be given or obtained in the
course of the business transacted by him for the
principal, shall, as between the principal and third
parties, have the same legal consequences as if it
had been given to or obtained by the principal.
Illustrations
(a) A is employed by B to buy from C certain
goods, of which C is the apparent owner, and
buys them accordingly. In the course of the treaty
for the sale, A learns that the goods really
belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact. B is
not entitled to set-off a debt owing to him from C
against the price of the goods.
(b) A is employed by B to buy from C goods of
which C is the apparent owner. A was, before he
was so employed, a servant of C, and then learnt
that the goods really belonged to D, but B is
ignorant of that fact. In spite of the knowledge of
his agent, B may set-off against the price of the
goods a debt owing to him from C.”
The learned AGA submits in the case at hand, the POA
holder is the agent and notice to the agent is sufficient
notice to the principal. He relies on the decision of the
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 24 of 35
Madras High Court in M. Masilamani vs. M. Veeramani
6
& another .
30. When the learned AGA was requested to show/refer to
the notice to the ‘acting partner’ as contemplated in the
Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, he refers to
Annexure-F/3 annexed to the additional affidavit filed by
the opposite party no.3-Deputy Director of Mines, Joda
Circle i.e. demand notice dated 02.09.2017 which reads
thus:-
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES,
“
JODA CIRCLE
No. 4046/ Mines Dt. 02.09.17
DEMAND NOTICE
To
M/s. H.G Pandya & Others.
At/Po:- Barbil
Dist:- Keonjhar
1. Whereas, it has been observed that H.G Pandya &
Others Jajang Iron and
, the mining lease holder of
Mn Ore mines over an area of 100.137 Ha., has
undertaken production of Iron Ore from the above
referred mining lease hold area without or in excess of
the approved limit of production under Environmental
Clearance during 2000-01 to 2010-11.
2. And Whereas pursuant to the interim order dt.
16.05.2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 Common Cause vrs. Union of
India and others, the CEC has dealt among others, the
issue of production without or in excess of EC and has
submitted its final report on dt. 16.10.2014 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said report the CEC
under Para 34 has calculated the notional value of the
total quantities of iron and manganese produced
without EC/beyond EC by all the lessees in the State
6
2017 SCC Online Mad 4978
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 25 of 35
of Odisha during the years 2000-01 to 2010-2011.
The details of year wise production of Iron Ore in the
Jajang Iron and Mn Ore mining leasehold area
along with the approved limit of production under EC,
the excess production, price of mineral and the
notional value (price of minerals) of total quantities of
Iron Ore produced without E.C./beyond the EC by you
during the years 2000-01 to 2010- 11 as have been
indicated in the said report is annexed herewith as
Annexure I.
3. Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
judgement dated 2.8.2017 in the W.P.(C)No.114 of
2014 has observed under para 128 that
“…………the holder of a mining lease is required to
adhere to the terms of the mining scheme, the
mining plan and the mining lease as well as the
statutes such as the ERPA, the FCA, the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. If any mining operation is conducted in
violation of any of these requirements, then that
mining operation is illegal or unlawful. Any
extraction of a mineral through an illegal or unlawful
mining operation would become illegally or
unlawfully extracted mineral".
4. Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
judgement has further observed under Para 150 that
"In our opinion, Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act is
applicable when any person raises without any
lawful authority, any mineral from any land. In the
event, the State Government is entitled to recover
from such person the mineral so raised or where the
mineral has already been disposed of, the price
thereof as compensation. The words 'any land' are
not confined to the mining leaser area. As far as the
mining lease area is concerned, extraction of a
mineral over and above what is permissible under
the mining plan or under the EC undoubtedly
attracts the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR
Act being extraction without lawful authority.
……………..”
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 26 of 35
5. Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
judgement has further held in Para 156 that
"Since the recommendation made by the CEC in this
regard is not totally unreasonable, we accept that
the compensation should be payable from 2000-
2001 onwards at 100% of the price of the mineral,
as rationalized by the CEC."
6. Whereas considering the above excess production
as production without lawful authority, you are liable
to pay a sum of Rs. 86,41,20,698.00/- (Eighty Six
Crore Forty One Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred
Ninety Eight Only) being the price thereof towards
compensation under Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957
for production without/in excess of the environmental
clearance as rationalized by the CEC, in pursuance to
the judgement dt.02.08.2017 of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of W.P. (C) No. 114/14 Common
Cause vrs. Union of India and Others.
Now therefore, you are hereby directed that you
shall pay the compensation of Rs. 86,41,20,698.00/-
(Eighty Six Crore Forty One Lakhs Twenty Thousand
Six Hundred Ninety Eight Only) as detailed in
Annexure I on or before 31.12.2017 in pursuance to
the para 225 of the Order dt.02.08.2017 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, following the mode of payment as
detailed out under Annexure II.
It is also made clear that the aforesaid demand is
relatable to recovery of price of minerals produced
without/beyond the EC alone under Section 21(5) of
MMDR Act, 1957 as adjudicated vide para 156 of the
judgement as referred above and does not include
recoveries under Section 21(5) of the said act for
violation of mining plan, consent requirements under
Air/Water Act and Forest violations, for which the
demands, if any would be raised separately.
Sd/-
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES
JODA CIRCLE, DIST:- KEONJHAR ”
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 27 of 35
31. The learned Sr. Counsel relies on the judgment of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.9263 of 2024, W.P.(C) No.9264 of 2024
and W.P.(C) 12358 of 2024 decided on 26.03.2026. It is
submitted that in those cases the appeals were pending
before the appellate authority arising out of the
adjudication by the OPDR authority and this Court after
considering the pleadings as well as submissions has
directed the appeals to be heard by the Revenue
Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack-
appellate authority, granting the parties the opportunity to
complete the respective pleadings and also granting
opportunity to the parties to make their respective
submissions before the appellate authority. He submits
that in the present case notice having not been
sufficient/affected parties having not been noticed, the
matter should be heard again by the Mining authority.
Discussions and conclusion of the Court
32. This Court takes note of Section 4 of the Indian
Partnership Act,1932 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court interpreting the said Section, in Malabar Fisheries
7
Co., Calicut vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala
and Comptroller and Auditor General v. Kamlesh
8
Vadilal Mehta , which are in the chain of decisions and
are still good law, laying down that a partnership firm is
not legal entity, like a company. It is a group of individual
7
AIR 1980 SC 176
8
(2003) 2 SCC 349
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 28 of 35
partners and the property belongs to all the partners
constituting the firm.
By applying the principle of law enunciated in
Malabar Fisheries Co., Calicut ( supra ) and Comptroller
and Auditor General ( supra ) contention raised on behalf
of opposite parties that execution of Form-‘K’ by the lessees
with State would lead to a conclusion that as Form-‘K’ is
executed by POA holder and notice to him is notice to all
the individual lessees/partnership firm, is untenable and
has to be rejected.
It may be that the power of attorney holder has signed
on behalf of all the lessees in the lease deed, but the recital
in the lease deed, which is signed by the Collector,
Keonjhar on behalf of the State Government, entered into
between the Governor of Odisha and the lessees, is clear to
the extent that the ‘lessees’ are ten in number as
mentioned in Form-‘K’. In all the covenants of the lease
deed the term ‘lessees’ is mentioned including the covenant
indicating ‘Notice’ (reproduced above).
33. Reading of the above quoted demand notice at
paragraph-31 dated 02.09.2017 reproduced at para-31
above, makes it clear that the notice was not issued to ‘the
acting partner’ as contemplated in Section 24 of the
Partnership Act, but it was to ‘M/s. H.G. Pandya & others,
At/Po- Barbil, Dist.: Keonjhar’. Therefore the argument
that notice was issued to the ‘acting partner’ as
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 29 of 35
contemplated in Section 24 of the Partnership Act has to
fail.
34. The judicial pronouncements relied upon on behalf of
the opposite parties and dealt with in the preceding
paragraphs would be of no avail for their cause as the fact
matrix of those cases are at poles apart from the facts of
the present writ application. A decision is only an authority
for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix, and
not for all that, would logically follow from what has been
so laid down or every observation made, said the Earl of
Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor more than a century ago in
9
Quinn vs. Leatham , and I quote:
“Before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, [1898] AC
1 and what was decided therein, there are two
observations of a general character which I wish to
make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said
before-that every judgment must be read as applicable
to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved,
since the generality of the expressions which may be
found there are not intended to be expositions of the
whole law, but governed and qualified by the
particular facts of the case in which such expressions
are to be found. The other is that a case is only an
authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny
that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to
follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning
assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code,
whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law
is not always logical at all. I think that the application
of these two propositions renders the decision of this
case perfectly plain, notwithstanding the decision in
Allen v. Flood(1).”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
9
[1901] UKHL 2: [1901] AC 495: [1900-3] All E.R. Rep.1 (Placitum H & I)
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 30 of 35
35. Applying the principles laid down in Quinn vs.
Leatham ( supra ), it has to be held that the decisions relied
upon by the learned AGA do lay down sound propositions
of law but would not come to the aid of the opposite party
authorities to support and justify the procedure
adopted/followed by them in adjudicating and deciding the
demand raised U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act and in the
proceeding initiated for recovery of the amount under the
provisions of OPDR Act.
36. Accordingly, it is held that execution of power of
attorney by the lease holders giving certain power to one of
the lease holders would not have a legal consequence that
notice issued to the POA holder by statutory authority
invoking and acting under a particular statute (such as
MMDR Act, OPDR Act) can be treated as notice to all the
lessees. Such proposition advanced by opposite parties has
to be and is answered in the negative.
37. In the Certificate Case No.30 of 2018, the order dated
11.04.2025 passed by the Certificate Officer (at Annexure-8
to the writ petition has been reproduced at paragraph-7
above) discloses that on the said date i.e. 11.04.2025 the
Certificate Officer “… received from Deputy Director Mines,
Joda Circle, Keonjhar… The list of legal heirs of H.G.
Pandya”. The Certificate Officer though was adjudicating
the matter, himself substituted the legal heirs as ‘certificate
debtors’ by observing:
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 31 of 35
“Hence it is substituted the CDr. By his wife Nirmala
Kanti Prasad Pandya and others as detailed below: …”
The above approach of the certificate authority
manifest in the order goes to show that no application was
made by the ‘certificate holder’ requiring issuance of notice
to substitute the ‘certificate debtors’. Before substituting
the ‘certificate debtors’ no notice has been issued. The
Certificate Officer while adjudicating, on his own motion,
has substituted the ‘legal heirs’ as ‘CDrs’ on the date their
name was furnished in a ‘list’, such procedure is not
prescribed in the OPDR Act. Then the Certificate Officer
has gone ahead to ask the newly added persons terming
them as CDrs., to pay the demand.
Such approach of the Certificate Officer cannot be
countenanced in law and the Certificate Case No.30 of
2018 has to be and is struck down by this Court.
38. However, in view of the ultimate direction that would
be issued in the present batch of writ applications the
propositions of law answered by this Court would not
impact the future proceedings concerning the petitioners.
39. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
having gone through the pleadings and considering the
case law cited at the Bar as well as noted and relied upon
by this Court and in view of the discussions made above;
this Court is of the considered view that in the interest
of justice and fair play, to comply with the principles of
natural justice i.e. giving opportunity to the party/person
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 32 of 35
affected and to comply with the constitutional guarantee of
procedural fairness/due process/rule against
arbitrariness, mandated to be followed by all the
authorities in all the proceedings;
the matter should be and is directed to be re-heard by
the appropriate authority competent to hear the issues
arising out of the mining lease and conditions thereof
under the MMDR Act, 1957 to determine the liability of the
writ petitioners.
40. Accordingly, it is directed the present petitioners shall
appear before Deputy Director of Mines/appropriate
authority competent to adjudicate U/s.21(5) of the MMDR
th
Act on 10 July, 2026. The other lessees who have not
approached this Court shall also have the liberty to appear
before the Deputy Director of Mines/competent authority
on the said date. The authority of the Mining Department
under MMDR Act/relevant statute shall issue notice to the
lessees who are not before this Court to appear before it by
a date in the proceeding as would be directed for
determination of the liability U/s.21(5) of the MMDR Act.
41. The petitioners in the present applications and the
other lessees who are not parties in the writ applications
but their names find place in the lease deed, if so advised,
th
shall make application by 20 July, 2026 before the
Deputy Director of Mines or the appropriate authority to
provide them with the relevant documents which they need
to refer, to defend/for giving reply to the show
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 33 of 35
cause/demand towards the mining dues U/s.21(5) of the
MMDR Act, 1957.
41.1 In case of non-availability of any documents, sought
for the authority shall be free to disclose the reason and
inform the applicant(s) regarding such non-availability. The
matter shall not be detained for non-availability of any
such document.
42. After supply of the documents to all the present
petitioners and the other lessees, they shall have the
liberty to file their respective reply within six weeks from
the date of supply of documents/intimation regarding
unavailability.
42.1 The appropriate authority shall have the liberty to
issue notice at the earliest to all the lessees/other entities
concerned for filing their response to the demand U/s.21(5)
of the MMDR Act, 1957 as notice would be necessary to the
persons who are not parties in the present batch of writ
applications. The other persons/entities, if they would be
noticed by the authority regarding the demand of mining
dues, shall also have six weeks’ time to respond.
43. After filing of the response of the noticees, the response
of the State to the said reply (ies), if any and if so advised,
shall be filed within six weeks before the adjudicating
authority. Thereafter the demand regarding the mining
dues shall be determined including the liability of the writ
petitioners/others to pay the same following due procedure
of law.
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 34 of 35
44. If any demand is saddled on any of the noticees, the
noticee shall have the liberty to challenge the same as
would be available to them under law including the
relevant statutes.
The mining authority shall have the liberty to initiate
all proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the
amount if found to be due to be paid by any of the
noticees.
45. The learned counsel representing the State/
Department of Mining appearing before the authority
adjudicating the demand U/s.21(5) of MMDR Act shall
apprise the authority by producing copies of all the orders
passed/directions issued by Hon’ble the Apex Court which
would have any bearing on the subject under adjudication.
46. No part of this judgment and the directions issued
shall be treated to be expression of opinion of this Court on
any of the contentions that may be raised by any of the
parties in the adjudication(s) that would be taken up.
47. With the aforesaid observation and directions the writ
petitions are disposed of.
Urgent certified copy shall be issued as per rules.
The parties shall have liberty to act upon the copy of
this judgment obtained from the official website of this
Court.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
nd
The 22 May, 2026/Radha/Jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
Date: 31-May-2026 14:22:18
W.P. (C) Nos.31548, 31551 & 31554 of 2025 Page 35 of 35