L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to provide necessary protection to the men and machineries operating in the sand quarry of Kuakhai River leased out in his favour and also for further direction to take action on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged on behalf of the petitioner-company. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that in the year 1995 it had applied to the Tahsildar for grant of lease in respect of sand quarry for a term of five years in mouza Mancheswar pertaining to Khata No. 555, Plot No. 1297 extending to an area of Ac. 27. 17 decimals and plot No. 725 extending to an area of Ac. 121. 35 decimals. The sand quarry was settled in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years on payment of annual royalty of Rs. 2, 50,000/- along with ground rent of Rs. 400/- and deed rent of Rs. 800/ -. After depositing the said amount provisional work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. There were some difficulties with regard to execution of the lease deed for which the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 7689/97. This Court while disposing of the writ application held that non-production of registered lease deed was due to pendency of impounding case and not for any fault of the petitioner and directed the authorities to consider petitioner's case for working out the quarry in question for a period of three years. Subsequently long term lease for a period of three years was granted in favour of the petitioner with effect from 25-4-2000 and the petitioner was allowed to operate the source for one year with effect from 25-4-2000 to 24-4-2001 by order dated 27-4-2000. Prior to the issuance of the order dated 27-4-2000 the opposite party No. 2 by order dated 19-2-2000 had permitted the petitioner to construct an approach road for plying of vehicles to transport extracted sand from Kuakhai river bed and after due demarcation of the land for the purpose of construction of the road the petitioner has constructed the approach road. When the petitioner made all arrangements to operate sand quarry after rainy season the residents of local village started trouble and did not allow the work to be undertaken. When the petitioner made all arrangements to operate sand quarry after rainy season the residents of local village started trouble and did not allow the work to be undertaken. The approach road was breached at several places as a result of which vehicles could not come near the river to lift sand and the workers engaged for extraction of sand were threatened by the villagers, as a result of which the quarry operation could not take place. Information was lodged in the local police station about the conduct of the local villagers in preventing operation of the quarry, threatening to workers and assaulting the drivers and damaging the vehicles, but no action was taken and the petitioner was not able to operate the quarry. ( 3 ) COUNTER has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 wherein it is stated that though by order dated 27-4-2000 the Sub -Collector, Bhubaneswar has approved the long term lease of Kuakhai river sand, for a period of three years, it has been allowed to operate the source for a period of one year from 25-4-2000 to 24-4-2001. The petitioner instead of constructing approach road in Mancheswar side approached the Tahsildar to make the approach road from Naharkanta side and in the process he went to lift sand from Naharkanta side of Kuakhai river which was opposed to and objected by the villagers of Naharkanta, Haridaspur, Hansapal, Sundarpatna, Rudrapur, Banguria and Muspatna on the ground that if sand is extracted it would affect river bank. Kuakhai River Embankment Surakhya Samiti established in the year 1948 by the villagers of these villages also objected to lifting of sand on the ground that the sand heaps worked as a barrier and protected those villages from flood and if sand is allowed to be lifted it may weaken the river bank which may be affected during flood. A meeting was called in which villagers and representative of the petitioner were present, but it yielded no result. The I. I. C. of the concerned police station has submitted F. R. against both the parties under Section 107 of the Cr. P. C. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that steps have been taken on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged on behalf of the petitioner. The I. I. C. of the concerned police station has submitted F. R. against both the parties under Section 107 of the Cr. P. C. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that steps have been taken on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THIS Court by order dated 9-8-2000 directed the Collector, Khurda to make an enquiry on certain points and submit a report. This Court further directed the Superintendent of Police on 11-1-2001 to submit a report with regard to law and order situation that may be created in the event the petitioner is allowed to operate the quarry. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Collector, Khurda submitted the report dated 27-8-2000. In the report the Collector has referred to the reports of the Suprintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar, Sub-Collector , Bhubaneswar and the Executive Engineer, Prachi Irrigation Division, Bhubaneswar. On the basis of the reports submitted by the aforesaid three authorities the Collector was of the view that the petitioner should negotiate with the vilagers and it may not be possible to provide police protection to the petitioner for operating the quarry all the time in the light of the stiff opposition from the public of Naharkanta and impending law and order problem. After receipt of the said report this Court by order dated 29-9-2000 directed the petitioner to negotiate with the representatives of the villagers as well as Surakhaya Samiti in presence of the Superintendent of Police, Khurda and try for settlement. It is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no settlement could be arrived in the negotiation held pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this Court. ( 5 ) IN the meantime, intervention application has been filed on behalf of some of the villagers of Naharkanta as well as Kuakhai River Embankment Surakhaya Samity and another set of villagers of Naharkanta who are willing to operate the quarry on the basis of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner. Before entering into the contention raised on behalf of the intervenor it is necessary to look into the report of the Collector, Khurda dated 27-8-2000. After taking into consideration the reports of the Superintendent of Police. Before entering into the contention raised on behalf of the intervenor it is necessary to look into the report of the Collector, Khurda dated 27-8-2000. After taking into consideration the reports of the Superintendent of Police. Khurda, Bhubaneswar and Sub-Collector, Bhusbaneswar and Executive Engineer, Prachi Irrigation Division , Bhubaneswar, the Collector is of the view that the approach road from Naharkanta side may not be feasible because of the fact that the river bank of Mancheswar has been declared unsafe by the competent authority as informed by the Executive Engineer, Prachi Division. He has further pointed that even though the lessee (petitioner) complies the technical advice of the Executive Engineer there is every likelihood of breach of peace as would be evident from the report of the Superintendent of Police, Khurda. It is the duty of the petitioner to make necessary arrangement for lifting of sand and as such authority under Orissa Mining and Minerals Concession Rules is not responsible for it. As there is huge stock of sand in the quarry, there shall be substantial loss of revenue to Government if the same is not leased out. The sources leased out lies at about 1200 feet from the left embankment on Naharkanta side. The Executive Engineer, Prachi Division has opined that lifting of sand beyond 100 mt from the beem i. e. the base of the embankment is permissible. Therefore, technically there will not be any problem towards safety of the embankment on left side if the quarry is operated at 1200 feet away from its base. However, the Collector was of the view that there will be law and order problem and the petitioner cannot be given police protection all the time. From the report of the Sub-Collector, it appears that the lease spot is not approachable, from the side of Mancheswar mouza (right embankment) and it is approachable through Naharkanta (left embankment ). From the right embankment measurement was taken at three different points and the distance were 1280 feet, 1485 feet and 1227 feet from three different points. It is also stated in the said report that no lease has been given from sand quarry in the Kuakhai river coming under Naharkanta mouza and only dispute is the approach road which has to pass through Naharkanta mouza area to approach the lease area. It is also stated in the said report that no lease has been given from sand quarry in the Kuakhai river coming under Naharkanta mouza and only dispute is the approach road which has to pass through Naharkanta mouza area to approach the lease area. It is also reported by the Sub -Collector that the petitioner has not lifted a single trip from, the lease area and only after permission of the Tahasildar and depositing money he has lifted some sand for the purpose of making the approach road. He has also reported that the only possible approach is from the side of Naharkanta mouza and no lessee can operate from Naharkanta side in view of stiff opposition from the vilagers. The Executive Engineer, Prachi Division in his letter addressed to the Collector, Khurda dated 26-5-2000 has reported that as regards removal of sand from Kuakhai river,a joint inspection of Naharkanta area was held on 25-8-2000 along with Sub-Collector, Bhubneswar and Tahasildar Bhubaneswar. The plot was shown wherefrom sand is proposed to be removed from Naharkanta mouza side along left embankment of Kuakhai river and the berm of the river at that location extends in average about 200 metres to 250 metres from the toe of the embarkment. In the said letter the Executive Engineer opined that the sand should not be removed upto 100 metres from the toe of the berm and that the same should not be disturbed and the berm of the river and the bank should not be cut/disturbed for approaches. ( 6 ) A sketch map attached to the Sub-Collector's report shows that in order to approach the lease area, the distance between the lease area and the embankment at three points had been measured and the approach road made from any of these three points has to pass through a part of Naharkanta mouza. On being questioned the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, i. e. the villagers of Naharakanta submitted that the villagers have no objection if the petitioner operates the quarry within the area granted to him on lease. Their apprehension is that (1) the petitioner will operate the lease beyond the area granted to him affecting the river bank, and (2) the approach road shall be constructed by the petitioner covering some portion of Naharkanta mouza which may affect traffic due to movement of heavy vehicles. Their apprehension is that (1) the petitioner will operate the lease beyond the area granted to him affecting the river bank, and (2) the approach road shall be constructed by the petitioner covering some portion of Naharkanta mouza which may affect traffic due to movement of heavy vehicles. Learned counsel for the intevenor fairly submitted that if the petitioner operates the quarry within the lease area, there shall be no danger to the embankment. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that if the petitioner operates within the lease area there will be no danger to the embankment and the approach road cannot be made from Mancheswar side as the embankment has been declared unsafe and it has to be from Naharkanta side. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no intention of operating the quarry beyond the lease area and the petitioner is neither interested to make approach road from Naharkanta side nor from Mancheswar side, but submitted that since the State has granted lease, it is the duty of the State to provide approach road also. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since embankment on the Mancheswar side has been declared unsafe it was allowed by the Tahsildar to prepare the approach road from Naharkanta side and it had been granted permission to lift sand for the purpose of making approach road. But it was prevented by the villagers from making the approach road. Learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that although lease area even if operated shall not affect the embankment, another writ application has been filed by the Surakhya Samiti challenging the same, but no interim order has been passed directing the stay of operation of the lease. ( 7 ) AFTER perusal of the reports submitted by different authorities and hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is for a period of three years and the petitioner has been initially allowed to operate for a period of one year. It is also clear that there will be no danger to the embankment if the petitioner is allowed to operate within the lease area. It is also clear that there will be no danger to the embankment if the petitioner is allowed to operate within the lease area. There is no possibility of operating the lease area by making approach road from Mancheswar side as the embankment from the Macheswar side has been declared unsafe and the approach road has to be made from Naharkanta side. From the sketch map it appears that only a small portion of Naharkanta mouza is to be utilised for the purpose of making approach road which the villagers are objecting to. In my view, the problem can be solved by allowing the petitioner to operate the quarry by making an approach road from Naharkanta side. For the purpose of preparation of approach road the petitioner shall not lift sand from the side of embankment and till the petitioner reaches the river bed the sand required for making the approach road should be brought from outside. The petitioner shall also not operate beyond the lease area and to ensure this concerned Tahsildar or the R. I. so appointed by the Tahsildar shall visit the lease area at least once in a month and in the event it is found that the petitioner is operating beyond the lease area on any side of the area granted to him, the lease operation shall be stopped immediately. There may be likelihood of breach of peace and it is the duty of hte State Government to provide such help as is necessary to prevent such breach of peace. The State Government having granted lease in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of revenue, is also duty bound to see that the petitioner operates the lease by making approach road from which ever side possible. The State Government cannot grant lease on one said and refuse to cooperate with the petitioner for the purpose of making approach road to operate the lease on the ground of law and order situation. The aforesaid observations and directions have been made taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned Advocates appearing for all the parties. The State Government cannot grant lease on one said and refuse to cooperate with the petitioner for the purpose of making approach road to operate the lease on the ground of law and order situation. The aforesaid observations and directions have been made taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned Advocates appearing for all the parties. If the Collector and the Superintendent of Police are of the view that the present arrangement directed by this Court to be followed may create unmanageable law and order situation, it will be their duty to find out an alternative approach to the quarry site, within fifteen days and allow the petitioner to operate using the said approach road. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Order accordingly.