Reconsider plea for special bench on illegal mining cases, SC to Orissa HC

The Supreme Court asked the Orissa High Court’s chief justice to reconsider setting up a dedicated bench. That bench would hear petitions filed by mining companies against compensation linked to illegal mining. The issue matters because recovery of large state dues remains blocked while these cases are pending.

The request followed information that seven petitions were pending before the high court. They involved mining leases in Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh and Keonjhar. Mining companies had obtained interim stays against recovery, and some stays were issued between November 2025 and June 2026. The state also sought to cancel some of those orders.

The high court has only 15 judges, including the chief justice, against a sanctioned strength of 33. The Supreme Court acknowledged that shortage but said the state’s financial interests required reconsideration of a dedicated bench. It asked the high court to pass suitable administrative orders and listed the matter for December 8.

A dedicated or special bench is a court bench assigned to hear a particular category of cases. Here, it would handle petitions connected with illegal mining compensation. The arrangement matters because these cases involve substantial public revenue and have remained unresolved while recovery stays continue.

Instead of being distributed across the high court’s general workload, the petitions could be placed before one designated bench. That bench could schedule them together, hear the mining companies’ challenges, consider the state’s requests to vacate stays, and move toward final disposal. The Supreme Court asked for this approach because seven related petitions were pending.

The proposal does not guarantee an outcome for either side. It is an administrative method for improving case management. The high court faces a severe vacancy problem, with 18 posts unfilled and more than 170,000 cases pending. The Supreme Court therefore asked the chief justice to reconsider the bench despite the manpower shortage.

Odisha assessed total compensation of ₹18,526.47 crore against 133 mining leases. The assessment covered compensation payable for mining without the required environmental and forest clearances. The figures show the large financial stakes behind the Supreme Court’s request for faster hearings.

The state recovered ₹15,561.19 crore, including interest, from 107 leases. That recovery followed the Supreme Court’s 2017 directions, which allowed Odisha to recover compensation through penalties under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The mechanism targeted illegally mined ore and related dues.

The remaining 26 leases accounted for ₹2,965.28 crore in outstanding compensation, excluding interest. Recovery has not been completed because mining companies challenged the demands in the high court and received interim stays in some cases. Until those petitions and stay applications are addressed, the state’s ability to collect the remaining amount remains restricted.

Recovery proceedings have been delayed for two connected reasons. Mining companies filed petitions challenging compensation demands, while the Orissa High Court lacked enough judges to hear them quickly. The court had only 15 judges against 33 sanctioned positions, and its overall pendency exceeded 170,000 cases.

Interim stays pause the state’s recovery action while a case is pending. Seven mining lease holders obtained such protection in petitions involving Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh and Keonjhar. The stays were granted between November 2025 and June 2026. In some matters, Odisha filed applications asking the high court to vacate them, but those applications also could not be heard promptly.

As a result, money assessed as payable remains difficult to collect. The Supreme Court noted that the state’s interests were affected by non-recovery of dues. It asked the high court to reconsider a dedicated bench so the petitions, similar cases, and stay applications could receive earlier consideration and final disposal.

A high court’s judges must hear new petitions, decide interim applications, and handle its existing backlog. In this case, the Orissa High Court had only 15 judges, including the chief justice, against a sanctioned strength of 33. Eighteen positions were vacant, creating a severe manpower shortage.

The mining petitions were therefore competing with a very large general workload. The Supreme Court was informed that the high court had more than 170,000 pending cases. Applications from Odisha to vacate recovery stays could not be heard because judges were unavailable. The same shortage delayed the mining companies’ petitions and prevented quick decisions on the disputed compensation.

The Supreme Court recognised the staffing problem but said the state’s unpaid dues made early attention important. It asked the chief justice to reconsider assigning these matters to a dedicated bench. Such an assignment could focus available judicial time on the connected petitions, although it would not remove the broader vacancies or backlog.

The Supreme Court is supervising the broader recovery issue through the Common Cause case. In 2017, it allowed Odisha to recover compensation from companies that mined without required environmental and forest clearances. It also directed that the state’s 2023 affidavit be treated as an application and has issued orders over time.

The Orissa High Court handles petitions filed by mining lease holders. It considers their challenges to compensation and related applications, including Odisha’s requests to vacate interim stays. The Odisha government assesses and collects the dues, and its law officers seek enforcement of recovery. The state reported recovery from 107 leases and unpaid amounts against 26.

The mining companies are the affected lease holders and petitioners. They challenge the compensation demands and have obtained interim stays in some cases. The Supreme Court has asked the high court to reconsider a dedicated bench so these competing claims can be heard sooner. The next hearing was scheduled for December 8.

Environmental and forest clearances are legal safeguards that must be obtained before mining begins. They allow authorities to examine whether proposed activity can proceed under applicable environmental and forest requirements. The article identifies these clearances as prerequisites and links their absence to the compensation dispute.

The Supreme Court’s 2017 directions covered companies that mined without the requisite clearances. It allowed Odisha to recover compensation for illegally mined ore through penalties under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The state then assessed compensation against 133 mining leases, including leases connected with the present petitions.

Mining without required approvals can harm the public interest because it bypasses the legal protections attached to environmental and forest resources. It can also create substantial public financial consequences when dues are not recovered. In this dispute, the state assessed ₹18,526.47 crore and had ₹2,965.28 crore outstanding against 26 leases, excluding interest.