Jharkhand High Court
Bidya Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4427 of 2023
-----
Bidya Sharma, aged about 45 years, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar,
resident of village: Dindar, P.O. Dindar, P.S. Haspura, District
Aurangabad. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Secretary Mines and
Geology Department State of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary Mines and Geology Department State of Jharkhand
at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. The Director Mines State of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Director Mines State of Jharkhand at Nepal House,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
5. The Commissioner Palamau Division at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District Palamau.
6. The Deputy Commissioner Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District
Garhwa.
7. The Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District
Garhwa.
8. Ganga Yadav, s/o Late Tulsi Yadav, r/o Sig Sig Kalan, P.O. & P.S.
Chiniya, Garhwa .......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the Res. No.8 : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
-----
Order No.10 Date: 23.04.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Aditya Raman, learned A.C. to G.A.-III for the respondent
nos.1 to 7 and Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.8.
2. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for an area of
about 8.47 acres at Mouza Sigsiga Kalan, Khata Nos.7 and 36,
Plot Nos. 856, 859, 863 and 1252 situated in Anchal Chiniya,
District Garhwa for mining of stone.
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
3. Thereafter a report was called for from the Circle Officer, Chiniya,
who after proper verification submitted a report to the District
Mining Officer, Garhwa stating that the concerned raiyats have
given their consent.
4. Thereafter, on 8th March, 2019, the District Mining Officer,
Garhwa informed the petitioner that through an order dated 6th
March, 2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa,
application of the petitioner dated 5th December, 2018 was
accepted and mining lease was granted and lease deed executed.
5. Subsequently, a letter dated 14th September, 2019 was issued to
the petitioner stating that there is some dispute being raised by
Ganga Yadav, one of the raiyats, whose land is alleged to be
within the mining area on the ground that he has not given
consent to the petitioner.
6. The said Ganga Yadav is the respondent no.8 in the writ petition.
7. The petitioner filed a reply stating that after the grant of mining
lease the objection is being raised by Ganga Yadav at the instance
of petitioner's business rivals and it was also stated that the
petitioner had not undertaken any mining operation over the plot
which belongs to Ganga Yadav. The petitioner also undertook to
indemnify the State Government in accordance with Clause-4,
Part-VII and Clause-2, Part-VIII of the Mining Lease till the
objection is not resolved with the said Ganga Yadav.
8. Thereafter, on instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa,
the Circle Officer, Chiniya submitted his report on 27 th January,
2020 in which he came to the conclusion that leaving the disputed
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
part, an area of 2.80 acres remains in which the raiyats have
given their consent for mining.
9. Thereafter an order dated 11th February, 2020 was passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, suspending the lease granted to
the petitioner and directing the lease holder to submit proposal
in accordance with law to the District Mining Officer, Garhwa for
disposal.
10. The petitioner, then gave his proposal on 29th February, 2020
undertaking that she would not do any mining operation in the
disputed area and she would confine herself to the area which is
not disputed i.e., 2.80 acres and further undertaking was given
that she would submit a revised mining plan in view of reduced
mining area.
11. The petitioner then submitted a revised mining plan which was
approved on 14th March, 2020 by the Additional Director Geology,
Hazaribag and the petitioner commenced mining operation and
an account was also opened on the JIMMS portal.
12. Suddenly, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa issued a letter on
7th July, 2023 alleging that an enquiry was conducted by the
Commissioner, Palamau, Medininagar and it was found that the
petitioner had obtained mining lease by producing forged consent
of raiyats, that there is no boundary pillar; and information board
as well as mineral storage register were not kept; that the mining
was not being done as per the mining plan; and, accordingly,
notice under Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
Concession Rules, 2004 was issued to the petitioner, asking her
to submit reply within seven days.
13. The petitioner submitted her reply on 13th July, 2023 disputing
the allegations and offering explanation thereto.
14. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa then allegedly passed an
order on 31st July, 2023 which was never communicated to the
petitioner.
15. On 1st August, 2023, the Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa
informed the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
had passed an order on 31st July, 2023, exercising powers given
under Rules 22(5) and 27(2) and he had terminated the lease
granted to the petitioner for the rest of the period, and asked the
petitioner to return the mining lease area after reclaiming and
rehabilitating the same.
16. Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that
premature termination of a mining lease can be done under
Section 4(A)(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 by the State Government only; there is no
delegation of the said power by a notification in the official
gazette to the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer; and in
the absence of such a notification, the Deputy Commissioner
cannot exercise the power of the State Government to
prematurely terminate the mining lease of the petitioner invoking
sub-Rule 5 of Rule 22 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2004.
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
18. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment dated 6th
February, 2025 in W.P(C) No.88 of 2024 rendered by this Court.
19. This legal position is not disputed by the counsel for the official
respondents.
20. Also we may point out that grant of a mere seven days' time for
filing a reply is contrary to Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which mandates a period of 30
days to be given for filing of a reply to a show-cause notice.
21. Moreover, in the communication dated 1st August, 2023
addressed by the Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa to the
petitioner, it is simply stated that the explanation offered by the
petitioner to the show-cause notice was found to be "not
satisfactory". No other reason is assigned. This also vitiates the
impugned action taken by the respondents.
22. Though counsel for the respondent no.8 sought to contend that
the land belonging to his client has also been included in the
mining area by playing fraud, admittedly, the land of the
respondent no.8 has been excluded which is evident from the
Letter No.20 dated 27th January, 2020 (Annexure-6) issued by the
Circle Officer, Chiniya. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the
said respondent by granting relief to the petitioner on the ground
that the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa had no jurisdiction to
prematurely terminate the mining lease of the petitioner that too
by not even communicating his order to the petitioner.
23. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.
2025:JHHC:12097-DB
24. The letter no.1067/M dated 1st August, 2023 issued by the
Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa and the order dated 31st July,
2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa are both set
aside.
25. However, liberty is granted to the State Government, in case, it
is so advised to initiate steps for terminating the lease of the
petitioner prematurely by issuing a proper show-cause notice,
giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain her stand and then
pass a reasoned order after providing a personal hearing and
communicate the same to her.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/Rohit
