‘Prosperity without preservation is peril, not progress’: Odisha High Court junks plea over ‘unauthorised’ use of forest area

“In the present case, the lesson that emerges is timeless yet immediate: the pursuit of mineral wealth cannot trample upon the sanctity of nature’s trust,” the order added. 

Case

It all started with the grant of Roida-I mining lease for 104.68 hectare in Siddhamatha Reserve Forest, Odisha, to a private company Khatau Narbheram and Co on May 21, 1963 till 1983. 

It was renewed until January 22, 2003, and then transferred to Mideast Integrated Steels Limited (MISL) on October 31, 1996. The lease was later extended up to March 31, 2020.

In 2020, the DFO restricted transportation of this stock of iron ore through the reserve forest road with strict conditions (no widening, no damage to flora/fauna, proper demarcation).

The lease, having expired, was included in a State of Odisha auction tender issued on March 7, along with seven other mineral blocks.

JSL, the successful Roida-I bidder, secured the lease but lacked forest clearance for the NH-connecting access road.

Despite applying for road diversion, the DFO revoked the mining working permission on October 19, citing unauthorised road use. This halt to operations triggered the current petition.

Arguments

On behalf of Jindal Steel Limited, advocate Gopal Jain and S S Mohanty argued that MISL had been using the approach road for 0.928 hectare for transportation of minerals from the mine to NH-215 (now NH-520). MISL had approached this Court seeking permission to transport raw material on the approach road leading to NH-215.

They further argued that in September, 2011, on the court’s interim order DFO allowed the MISL to use the approach road without affecting diversion of forest area on a monthly basis. Further the order extended till February, 2019.

Representing the state, additional government advocate Debasish Nyak and advocate Lalitendu Mishra argued that MISL was in continuous violation of statutory requirements of the working order from July 30, 2025. In fact, they had constructed an illegal approach road constituting approximately 0.928 hectares of forest land inside the reserve forest without the necessary approvals.

They said that the MISL had excavated a substantially larger volume of minerals than what was permitted.

This court and the Supreme Court allowed the use of the road for the limited purpose of transporting the already excavated minerals towards the outstanding royalty dues of the state government, said the counsel. However, till date, the said road continues to be illegal as it is pending statutory clearances, they added.

Key finding

• A miner’s licence is a privilege, not a prerogative; his first duty is stewardship, not exploitation. For every ton of ore extracted, there lies an unwritten debt to the soil, the forest, and the unseen future.
• The maxim salus populi suprema lex esto meaning thereby, the welfare of the people is the supreme law which finds its truest resonance in the protection of the environment.
• Those who quarry the earth must remember that they are not owners of its bounty, but trustees of its grace.
• Environment, in its quiet majesty, is not a passive backdrop to human enterprise but the living manuscript of our collective destiny.
• The court further added that the company, before this court, has a commercial acumen but seems to have “momentarily forgotten that every mine carved into a forest is a dialogue between necessity and restraint.”
• It said that the law, like a “vigilant sentinel”, ensures that ambition does not silence duty.
• What the petitioner seeks under the guise of natural justice, is not hearing but condonation of violation, which law cannot provide.
• Environmental regulation serves not merely administrative order but constitutional fidelity.
• The mere usage of a road without any forest diversion in the past, does not confer any right on the Petitioner to insist upon usage of the same de hors forest diversion.
• When the last tree is cut, and the last river poisoned, man will discover he cannot eat money.
• The law, therefore, is not an adversary of industry but its moral compass, reminding every enterprise that prosperity without preservation is peril, not progress.