Penalty order under minor mineral rules by authority lacking jurisdiction is void; quashed and remitted to competent authority for fresh adjudication despite subsequent power conferment.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief:

“(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing and setting aside Letter issued vide Memo No. 1329/M dated 30.12.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 [Annexure-7], in alleged exercise of power under Rule 54 of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, especially because Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction and/or authority to pass such order, and, further, said order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.”

2. The matter was taken up on 28th July, 2025, to which one of us [Sujit Narayan Prasad, J] was a member. On the said date following order was passed:

“1.The matter can be heard if the petitioner deposits at least 50% of the demand amount.

2. Place the matter after the amount is deposited.”

3. Pursuant thereto, an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 14290 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner making a prayer for recall of order dated 28th July, 2025, inter alia, on the ground that the decision which has been sought to be quashed has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction to exercise the said power, which has been admitted by the State by issuance of notification as contained in Memo No. 01/2025 -1072 dated 06.05.2025. Another ground has been taken that this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1011 of 2025 [Md. Moktar Momin Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] has held that to impose penalty under Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, power has been conferred upon the authorities i.e., Director, Mines; Additional Director, Mines for the entire State of Jharkhand; and Deputy Director, District/Assistant Mining Officer, of its jurisdiction, by virtue of Notification dated 6th May, 2025, and, there was no such power to the District Mining Officer prior to the issuance of the said notification by the State of Jharkhand.

4. The submission, therefore, has been made that since the Deputy Commissioner was having no jurisdiction when the order impugned has been passed and as such relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal or revision, would not come in the way in entertaining the writ petition in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order imposing penalty by the respondent is dated30.12.2023 and as such the State Government has no power and jurisdiction to impose penalty on or before 6th May, 2025.

6. Further submission has been made that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in depositing 50% of the disputed amount, especially when the State has conferred power upon the respondent(s) under Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 subsequent to the date of impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, has filed the instant Interlocutory Application for recall of order dated 28th July, 2025.

8. Learned counsel for the State has accepted the fact that by virtue of Notification dated 6^th May, 2025, the power has been conferred upon the authorities i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand; Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mi