IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1151 of 2026 M/s. Inland Power Limited, having its registered office at P-221/2 Strand Bank Road, Kolkata and Plant at Village Tonagatu, PO-Saram, PS-Gola, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand, represented through its Director, Sri Giriraj Kumar Jhawar, S/o Late Shyam Sundar Jhawar, R/o

9003, B. Green View Heights, Bariatu, Ranchi... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 4. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh

5. Central Coalfields Limited, represented through Chief Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi ... … Respondents -----

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun, Advocate Mr. Yash Raj, Advocate Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate -----

Order No. 02 Dated: 19.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the demand of Rs.82,63,548/- raised against the petitioner-company for transporting coal without complying with the requirements of Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

3. Against the demand, the petitioner instituted Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No. 05/2020 under Rule 14 of the above referred 2017 Rules. However, the appellate authority (R-3) dismissed this appeal by order dated 01.11.2021.

4. Undeterred, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 67/2022 before the Revisional Authority (R-2). Even this revision petition was dismissed by order dated 18.06.2025.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders raising a demand of Rs.82,63,548/- for transporting mineral in breach of Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered Dealer authorized to transport minerals through road transport. He did not dispute that no transport challan, as contemplated by Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules, was obtained by the petitioner. However, his contention was that it was the responsibility of the Central Coalfields Limited (R-5) to obtain such a transport challan, and for the fault of the 5^th respondent, no demand can be raised upon the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to elaborate on the above contention by referring to Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules and also the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations of 2005. He submitted that under no circumstances could the petitioner be faulted for transporting minerals from the railway siding to its power generation plant because the primary responsibility for obtaining the transport challan was that of CCL (R-5) and not of the petitioner. He submitted that, since the original authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority have not considered or appreciated this contention, the impugned demand and the orders confirming it warrant interference by this Court.

8. Mr Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel for the State respondents, defended the impugned demand and orders confirming the said demand based upon the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that once it was undisputable that Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules was observed only in breach, the petitioner could not avoid making payments in terms of the demand raised. He submitted that assuming there was some difference of opinion between the petitioner and the CCL (R-5), such a difference or dispute would never be a ground for resisting the payment under the demand. He submitted that, admittedly, it was the petitioner who had transported the mineral without the transport challan and, therefore, the petitioner could not avoid payment of the demand.

9. Mr A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL (R-5), submitted that there was no obligation on the part of CCL t