IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
M/s. Kharkhar St – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.2608 of 2025
Decided on : 19-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for renewal of mining lease. (Para 1) |
| 2. initial facts regarding mining lease status. (Para 2) |
| 3. parties present their arguments and contentions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's review of issues based on precedents. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs :-
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing order passed by Respondent- Authorities as contained in Memo No. 1722/M dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-4), wherein application filed by Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No. 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 has been rejected in a most illegal and arbitrary manner.
ii. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to consider and consequentially grant renewal of mining lease in favour of Petitioners, pertaining to mining lease of stone boulders over an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 for a period of 10 years commencing from 17.04.2010 to 16.04.2020 and consequentially grant lease in favour of Petitioner over the aforesaid area.
iii. Forissuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short 'JMMC Rules') vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-5), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure- 6) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-7) do not prohibit grant of renewal of mining lease, but only provides, inter alia, that any new lease over 3 hectares of land would be granted in terms Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-8).
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:-
i. Petitioner was initially granted mining lease over a piece of land having an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No. 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 for a period of 10 years commencing from 17.04.2010 to 16.04.2020.
ii. Petitioner, prior to expiry of Mining Lease Deed, on 25.12.2019, filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in statutory Form-F and along with the said renewal application, Petitioner enclosed the requisite Challan towards deposit of renewal fee of Rs.5000/-.
iii. Despite the fact that Petitioner filed application for renewal of its mining lease, said application for renewal was not being considered by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kodarma on the alleged sole ground that after amendment carried out by virtue of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019, there is no provision for renewal of mining lease.
iv. Whenever petitioner contacted the office of Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Petitioner was not informed about the status of mining lease of Petitioner and it was verbally informed to Petitioner that its mining lease application for renewal of mining lease is deemed to have been rejected under law. Under the said circumstances, Petitioner filed a Revision application, being Revision Case No. 26 of 2024 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand. In the said Revision application, statement of fact cu
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.