Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 629

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Anand Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1558 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati
For the Respondents: Rajiv Ranjan, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Aditya Kumar

When a breach of a mining lease's material terms, such as the non-payment of royalty, is undisputed, procedural irregularities in the termination process do not warrant judicial interference, as remanding the matter for technical compliance would result in a futile exercise.

Headnote:(A) Mining and Mineral Concession Rules - Rule 22(5) and Rule 27(2) - Termination of mining lease - Non-payment of royalty - Statutory notice - Whether failure of the competent authority to personally sign a termination order and instead relying on an approval recorded in the file constitutes a fatal illegality - Held, no - Where the fact of non-payment of royalty is admitted, remanding the matter for a formal order is a futile exercise and amounts to an empty formality. (Paras 12, 13, 24, 25, 29)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of - Applicability - Where facts are undisputed and the outcome is inevitable, procedural requirements like a hearing or formal notice period, although required for fairness, do not necessitate interference if they result in an empty formality. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted a mining lease for a minor mineral for 10 years. Alleging non-payment of royalty, the mining authority initiated proceedings. A notice was issued, though the petitioner claimed non-receipt. Subsequently, the competent authority approved the termination of the lease based on the proposal of the district official. The petitioner challenged the termination as being in violation of the principles of natural justice and lacking a valid order in the eye of law from the competent authority.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the non-payment of royalty was an admitted fact, even leading to concurrent recovery proceedings. While acknowledging that an internal file noting is not a substitute for a formal order, the court held that in the presence of admitted liabilities, remanding the matter would merely delay an inevitable conclusion, thereby serving no practical purpose.

Issues: Whether the termination of the mining lease was vitiated due to the lack of a formal order by the prescribed competent authority and whether the failure to serve a statutory notice invalidated the entire proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Principles of natural justice are not to be applied in a straitjacket formula. Where there is no dispute regarding the fundamental breach of contract (non-payment of royalty), providing a fresh opportunity or remanding the case for the sake of procedural perfection constitutes a futile exercise, as the outcome would remain unchanged.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges termination of mining lease due to alleged procedural non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding formal order passage versus communication of administrative approval. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. statutory authority powers to terminate leases for non-payment of royalty. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. administrative files versus formal orders; impact of undisputed royalty arrears. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. futile exercise doctrine in administrative law; procedural compliance in clear-cut liability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. dismissal of petition due to non-violation of natural justice in admitted default cases. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

C.A.V. on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 15/01/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

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

“A. For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure-8) passed by the Respondent No.1 as the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No.20/2020, whereby the Revision preferred by the petitioner as against the order dated 08.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has been disallowed.

And/Or B. Further issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.02.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau whereby the registered Mining Lease of Stone in Mouza Chaparwar, Thana No.55, Khata No.91, Plot No.129 in Palamau District of Jharkhand State for a period of 10 years w.e.f 26.02.2014 has been prematurely terminated.

And/Or C. Further for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Mining Lease hold area and further restraining the respondents from creating any third part right during the pendency of this Writ petition.”

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

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was holding a Minor Mineral Mining Lease of Stone in Mouza Chaparwar, Thana No.55, Khata No.91, Plot No.129 in Palamau District of Jharkhand State for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 26.02.2014 under Jharkhand Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 . The aforesaid mining lease deed has already been executed and duly registered before the District Sub Registrar, Palamau.

(ii) The petitioner has been granted environmental clearance by the Member Secretary, Bihar Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter no.249 dated 30.01.2014.

(iii) The petitioner has been granted CTE, vide letter no.G-2 715 dated 21.07.2014 of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

(iv) The petitioner had been successfully operating the mine in accordance with law, however, on 25.12.2016, he had met with an accident and slipped and thereafter, was under the treatment of Specialized Doctors at Medanta, CMC Vellore, etc.

(v) After the treatment, the petitioner received the letter no.230/M dated 08.02.2020 of the District Mining Officer, Palamau, whereby and whereunder, the mining lease of the petitioner over the land in question for 10 years has been pre-maturely terminated.

(vi) In letter no.230/M dated 08.02.2020, the respondent District Mining Officer has mentioned that a thirty days legal notice was issued to the petitioner vide his office letter no.881/M dated 28.06.2019 but the said letter could not be served upon the petitioner, hence, the petitioner could not reply or comply with or could not rectify the error and without serving the legal notice, the mining lease of the petitioner was terminated ex-parte.

(vii) The petitioner has not been served the 30 days legal notice by the respondents as mandated by Rule 27(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 629

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJAnand Kumar Singh – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – RespondentW.P.(C) No.1558 of 2024

When a breach of a mining lease's material terms, such as the non-payment of royalty, is undisputed, procedural irregularities in the termination process do not warrant judicial interference, as remanding the matter for technical compliance would result in a futile exercise.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Anand Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1558 of 2024