SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
M/s Maa Tara Stone Works - Appellant 
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent 
W.P.(C) No.3117 of 2025
Decided On : 21-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

The court held that mining lease renewal applications must adhere strictly to statutory timelines, rendering post-expiration submissions invalid.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 23 - Renewal of mining lease - Petition for renewal of mining lease denied on grounds of non-compliance with application timelines and amendments restricting renewal - Authority's decision considered to have complied with statutory provisions; renewal post cut-off date not permissible. (Paras 44, 52)

(B) Judicial discipline - Court cannot ignore binding precedents, even if incorrectly applied, to ensure consistency in rulings across similar cases. The Judicial principle of 'per incuriam' examined; conflicting decisions acknowledged yet not overridden due to absence of action by the coordinate bench. (Paras 36, 41)

(C) Certiorari - Writ of Certiorari suitable for correcting errors of jurisdiction or illegal administration, not for reassessing factual findings absent jurisdiction error. (Paras 56, 60)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought renewal of its mining lease over 2.80 acres in Pakur, Jharkhand, asserting procedural compliance while highlighting prior acceptance and rejection of applications based on alleged statutory amendments. The petition arose from a contested order rejecting renewal on purported timeliness following amendments to the rules prohibiting renewal after 31.03.2022.

Findings of Court:
The Court dismissed the petition, asserting the rejection was in line with statutory requirements prohibiting renewal applications beyond the prescribed cut-off date. The issue of mandatory timelines and the nature of statutory rules governing renewal applications were critically examined, underscoring the authority's adherence to legislative framework.

Issues: Whether the time limit for renewal applications is mandatory or directory, and whether applications filed post-expiration are valid under existing regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that statutory restrictions dictate the non-renewal post-cut-off; principles of harmonious construction between rules were applied to maintain legislative intent.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

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

“For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing order passed by Respondent No.3 contained in Memo No. 276/M, dated 04.03.2025, (Annexure-10) wherein application filed by Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 2.80 acres, situated at Mouza Suraidih, Thana Hiranpur, Plot No. 63 (part), 64(part) and 65(part) in the District of Pakur, 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 Petitioner, pertaining to mining lease of stone boulders over an area of 2.80 acres, situated at Mouza Suraidih, Thana Hiranpur, Plot No. 63 (part), 64(part) and 65(part) in the District of Pakur, for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2032.

(iii) For issuance 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-2), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-3) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-4) 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-5).

(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: -

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was granted mining lease over an area of 2.80 acres, situated at Mouza Suraidih, Thana Hiranpur, Plot No.63 (part), 64(part) and 65(part) in the District of Pakur, for a period of 10 years from 07.06.2010 to 05.06.2020. In terms of provisions of JMMC Rules, 2004, the period of said mining lease was extended up to 31.03.2022 by supplementary lease deed for extension of minor minerals dated 30.12.2020.

(ii) The writ petitioner, prior to expiry of its Mining lease deed, on several occasions attempted before the respondent- authorities for filing application for renewal of mining lease but such application for renewal of mining lease was not being accepted by the respondent authorities. The respondent-State of Jharkhand, on the pretext of alleged amendment carried out under JMMC Rules, 2004 was not granting any renewal of mining lease.

(iii) The writ petitioner has been further advised to annex provisions of JMMC (Auction) Rules, 2017 and from bare perusal of the said Auction Rules also, it would be evident that the said Auction Rules only contemplates grant of fresh mining lease/concession through auction and does not deal with the applications pertaining to renewal of mining lease.

(iv) Despite the fact that such right of renewal has been stipulated in statutory lease deed itself, respondent-authorities on the pretext of aforesaid amendment, were not extending benefit of renewal of mining lease nor were giving extension of renewal of mining lease. In this context, it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of a document pertaining to renewal of its mining lease, wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, in respect of the said applicant for renewal of mining lease, clearly stated that in view of the amendment made in JMMC Rules, 2004, there is no provision for renewal of mining lease. In fact, said understanding of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma was the prevalent understanding of the concerned authorities across the Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top