I. Mahanty, J. - (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. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the fact that pursuant to application dated 25.10.2006, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India vide their letter dated 28.01.2008 under Annexure -4, granted the environmental clearance in respect of 188.523 hectares. Thereafter, necessary approvals were also obtained from the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (WL) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Orissa under the cover of their letter dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure -5). Thereafter, the Union of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forest had granted in principle approval for diversion of 177.517 hectares of forest land, i.e., stage -II clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 vide their letter dated 31.07.2009 under Annexure -6. Consequently, under cover of letter No. 2877 dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure -7), opposite party No. 3 -Divisional Forest Officer, Bonai Division called upon the petitioner to deposit necessary NPV of Rs. 13,72,72,870/ - for 177.517 hectares. Renewal of mining lease was applied for 188.523 hectares, whereas the above forest area falls under Eco -value class -I and the canopy density is 0.3 for which NPV is to be changed @ Rs. 7,30,000/ - per hectare over the entire forest area, i.e., 188.523 x Rs. 7,30,000/ - = Rs. 13,76,21,790 and since the petitioner earlier had deposited Rs. 13,72,72,870/ -, he was further called upon to deposit the differential NPV of Rs. 3,48,920/ - within thirty days. In compliance of such direction of opposite party No. 3 under Annexure -7, petitioner made deposit of the aforesaid differential amount of NPV vide Bank Draft dated 10.06.2010. All other permissions in respect to clearance from State Pollution Control Board etc. were duly obtained. As it appears that the petitioner had also moved for necessary approval under sub -rule (2) of Rule 23C of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (for short, 'Rules, 1988') and by letter dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure -12), the Regional Controller of Mines granted necessary approval of Final Mine Closure Plan (for short, 'FMCP') for the surrendered area of 144.54 hectares. As it appears that the opposite party No. 3, who issued No. 2877 dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure -7) was transferred and after the joining of his successor in office as D.F.O., Bonai Division, impugned letter dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure -13) came to be issued, wherein, the DFO claimed that the total area under Renewal of Mining Lease (for short, 'RML') is 333.063 hectares and not 188.523 hectares and based on such computation, a further demand of Rs. 10,33,07,410/ - has come to be raised. The said demand was communicated under cover of letter dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure -22) issued by the subsequent DFO, Bonai Division, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
(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.;