ORDER :

1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur- respondent no.2 in Revision Case no.1 of 2018-19, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone over an area of 06 acres of land has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that on 25.02.2016, the petitioner had applied for grant of fresh mining lease for a period of 10 years in respect of land appertaining to plot nos.999, 1000, 1002(P), 1003, 1004 & 1005, Khata Nos.88 & 89, measuring an area of 6 acres, situated in Mauza Hathigarh, P.S. Littipara, District Pakur. The letter of intent (L.O.I.) was issued on 22.04.2016 and approval for the said fresh mining lease of stone in favour of the petitioner was also given on 29.11.2016. Vide letter dated 26.12.2016, the petitioner was directed to deposit requisite fee and relevant documents within 15 days for execution of lease deed, which were submitted after the prescribed period of 90 days. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the revisional authority i.e. Court of Mines Commissioner, Ranchi by filing a revision application being Revision Case No.145 of 2017 against the deemed revocation of sanction order dated 29.11.16. The said revision application was disposed of by the revisional authority vide order dated 23.03.2018 remanding the matter to the respondent no.2 to examine the same on merit. The revisional authority observed inter alia that though the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and fees after the prescribed period, the respondent no.2 on being satisfied with the cause of delay might execute lease deed even after expiry of prescribed period, if the delay in execution was found not attributed to the applicant. On remand, the respondent no.2 registered Revision Case No.01 of 2018-19 and passed the order dated 20.06.2018, rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease of stone on the ground that the mining plan in the existing form involved government and raiyati land, both, and in the light of the prevalent rules, mining lease cannot be granted which otherwise would violate the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though all the required documents including the statutory clearance had been submitted long back and the respondent no.2 had granted approval for the said mining lease of stone, however, the lease deed could not be executed in view of the interim order of stay dated 19.01.2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal (in short ‘N.G.T.’), Kolkata in the matter of operation of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules, 2004’) which is evident from the order sheet dated 20.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.2. The revisional court clearly observed that the delay, if any, had not been caused at the instance of the petitioner and as such the matter was remitted back to the respondent no.2 for taking decision in respect of execution of the lease deed. The respondent no.2 arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of mining lease of stone on the ground that since the land over which proposed lease was sought to be granted comprised of raiyati land as well government land, the lease cannot be granted and if the same is done without inviting application(s) by way of open tender from other interested persons, it will amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Amendment Rules, 2017’) came into existence on 22.02.2017 and the L.O.I. had a