Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Kamal Khan, son of Late Besarat Ali Khan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022, With W.P. (C) No. 3077 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 4462 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 4463 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 4466 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.4648 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 5214 of 2022
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advcoate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG II

The District Mining Officer lacks jurisdiction to impose monetary penalties under the MMDR Act and must follow due procedure, emphasizing the need for legal authority when dealing with illegal mining allegations.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21(5) - Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 54(6) - Writ petitions filed for quashing illegal demand notices concerning alleged illegal mining of sand. The court emphasizes the necessity of adherence to natural justice principles and the absence of jurisdiction of District Mining Officer to impose penalties without complaint filing procedures. The petitioners were found to have no direct involvement in illicit activities and had been falsely implicated. The court quashed impugned orders, remitting the matter to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration in light of recent jurisdictional notifications. (Paras 41, 42, 49, 84, 90)

Table of Content
1. writ petitions filed under article 226 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. overview of case facts regarding illegal mining allegations (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. details on penalties and allegations against the petitioner (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. argument regarding jurisdictional authority of the district mining officer (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 44)
5. analysis of jurisdictional issues and legal principles (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. decision to quash impugned orders and remit the matter (Para 93 , 94)

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ petitions are identical, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, all these matters have been tagged together. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Common Prayer made in the writ petitions:

2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as quoted as under:

3. The prayer as made in WPC No. 2859 of 2022 reads as under:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-5) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs) within a period of one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of 7,00,000 cubic feet sand from Mouza-Ragdih/Naurangi, Thana No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 410, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs. 52, 50,000/-.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 664/m. dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure- 6) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit the outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7 days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for recovery of the amount.

4. The Prayer as made in WPC No. 3077 of 2022 reads as under:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 824/M. dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure-9) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and where under in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) within a period of one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of 22,500 cubic feet sand from Anchal- Ranehswar, Mouza- Diguli, Plot No. 2, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs. 1,68,750/-.

5. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4462 of 2022 reads as under:

a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in Memo No. 1847 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of differential royalty on 4,47,000 cubic feet; twice the value of 89,79,000 cubic feet stone excavated and penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns.

b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022 contained in memo no. 1897 (Annexure-5) in terms of which the copy of the sectional measurement has been enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent would proceed ex-parte;

c. For quashing the letter no. 2097 dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be raised as per the report of the