Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
D.M. Minerals Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.4561 of 2019
Decided On : 16-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate:Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate:Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C. to A.G. For the U.O.I. : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma

The court determined that the extension of mining leases is governed by the state rules for minor minerals, rejecting arguments for a deemed extension under central legislation after a change in mineral classification.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Sections 8A(3) and 8A(6) - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017 - Rule 9(10) - Petitioner’s mining lease for China Clay sought deemed extension of 50 years per Section 8A - Court found Rule 9(10) valid and applicable; existing provisions do not provide for extension beyond 31.03.2022 for minor minerals, thus, limiting lease duration. (Paras 1, 76, 94)

(B) Jurisdiction - Interplay of State and Central legislation - Court upheld the supremacy of the MMDR Act’s provisions for minor minerals and concluded petitioner cannot invoke earlier provisions post-amendment. (Para 86)

(C) Lapse of time - Petitioner barred from claiming extension under MMDR post acceptance of applicable JMMC Rules, thus rendering the claim untenable. (Paras 88, 90)

(D) Reply of the State authority - State argued that the new rules under the JMMC govern the applicant's rights fully. (Para 21) (E) Finality of proceeds - The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit, thus endorsing operational legislative amendments for mining extensions. (Para 94)

Table of Content
1. factual background of mining lease. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. deemed extension of mining leases. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. notification regarding minor mineral status. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. arguments regarding the jurisdiction and lease status. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 23)
5. court's inquiry on legal applicability. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. delay in lease renewal and implications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. amendments in law concerning lease validity. (Para 37 , 38 , 54)
8. overlap and exclusivity of jurisdiction. (Para 58 , 60 , 61 , 64)
9. refusal of application based on procedural adherence. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 72)
10. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 94 , 95)

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order (s) /Direction(s) in the nature of certiorari to quash and declare the Rule 9(10) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION AMENDMENT RULES , 2017 notified vide Notification No. 149 dated 02.03.2017 as ultra vires to be in contravention with Sections 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.

(ii) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order (s) /Direction(s) commanding upon the Respondents to extend the lease-hold of the Petitioner for China Clay for a period of 50 years as stipulated in terms of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Amendment Act 2015 which, provided for deemed extension of the mining lease for a period till 31.03.2020 or 50 years, whichever is later.”

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, are being referred herein: -

The Petitioner was granted a mining lease for China Clay over an area of 38.40 hectares of land in village Gondkida, District West Singhbhum for a period of ten years w.e.f. 09.01.1979.

3. The said mining lease was renewed for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 09.01.1989 and the lease deed for the said renewal was executed on 30.03.1999.

4. The Petitioner filed an application for second renewal of the aforesaid mining lease on 01.07.1997 for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 09.01.1999 which was duly acknowledged in Form-D by the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa and a recommendation was made by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum for the grant of approval and was subsequently forwarded to the Director (Mines), Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar vide letter contained in Memo No. 1117/M dated 20.07.2000.

5. The Petitioner had applied for a renewal of lease deed for a further period of 20 years w.e.f. 09.01.1999 and application was made on 09.01.2009 which was again duly acknowledged by the District Mining Officer in Form-D dated 04.01.2008 and recommended and forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the Director (Mines) vide letter contained in Memo No. 916/M dated 07.05.2008.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the above-mentioned renewal applications were kept pending by the Respondent authorities for long, hence the Petitioner Company continued working under deemed extension of the lease deed applicable then.

7. During the pendency of the renewal applications, the Central Government promulgated the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 which was passed as an Amendment Act, 2015 on 27.03.2015 w.e.f. 12.01.2015.

8. The said Amendment brought about a notable change in Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and inserted a new Section 8 A for regulating the period of mining leases of minerals. Said amendment brought about remarkable changes in the power of State Government in matters of grant of and extension of mining leases.

9. Since the Petitioner Company has been granted the mining lease for non-captive purposes, hence, Section 8(a) (6) is attracted in the matter and in view of the fact that the Petitioner fulfills all the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the