Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4194 of 2025
-----
Rahul Singh, S/o Lalsahab Singh, R/o Sakin-N345,
Ashiyana, P.O. & P.S. Lucknow, District-Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh 226014 through its Power of Attorney Holder,
Animesh Kumar Gupta aged about 33 years, S/o Late
Ashok Kumar Gupta, R/o Gupta Market, College Road, P.O
& P.S. Sahibgaj, Dist-Sahibganj. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology officiating from his
office at Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O and
P.S-Doranda, Dist- Ranchi-834002.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, officiating from
his office at Collectorate Building, Stadium Road, P.O
and P.S Sahibaganj, Dist-Sahibganj.
3. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, officiating from
his office at District Mining Office, Near Collectorate
Building, Stadium Road, P.O and P.S Sahibaganj, Dist-
Sahibganj. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
------
Order No. 03/Dated 8 August, 2025
th
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India wherein prayer has been made for
quashing of the notice dated 09.02.2023 as contained in
Letter No.97/M.
2. Much have been argued by Mr. Prashant Pallav,
learned counsel for the petitioner, on merit.
3. He has raised the issue that there is no proper
consideration of the reply furnished in terms of the notice
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
issued under Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004, therefore, the present writ petition
has been filed directly to this Court invoking the
jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General
appearing for the State, has also argued by referring to the
provision of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 by advancing submission that the
mandate as contained in Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 has strictly been
complied with and, as such, it is not a case which may be
said to be in violation of principle of natural justice while
passing the impugned order dated 09.02.2023.
5. It has been contended that there is no violation of
principle of natural justice, rather, as per the case of the
petitioner no proper consideration of the reply furnished in
the light of the provision of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, therefore, two
alternative remedies as available by way of appeal and
revision are to be taken recourse.
6. It has been contended by referring to the impugned
order, particularly, paragraph-3 thereof, that specific
reason has been assigned that in course of physical
verification of the stock, as referred in the Monthly Stock
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
Register, the authority has come to the conclusion that the
extracted mines products are being transported illegally
without any transit permit.
7. Learned Advocate General, therefore, has submitted
that even accepting what has been submitted on behalf of
the petitioner denying the fact about illegal transportation
of the mining product, then the same being the disputed
question of fact, cannot be assessed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, particularly, also for the reason
that for the aforesaid reason, the alternative remedies have
been made available under the statute.
8. This Court has considered the submission made on
behalf of the parties.
9. We are conscious that under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India there is no embargo in entertaining
the writ petition, rather, writ petition can well be
entertained depending upon the situation, i.e., if there is
violation of principle of natural justice or the decision so
taken by the authority is in flagrant violation of the
statutory provision.
10. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken
into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if alternative remedy
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
for dispute redressal mechanism is available, the writ court
should be loath in exercising the power conferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. We have assessed the factual aspect based upon the
touchstone of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar
of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (Supra) and found
from the admitted fact, particularly, by going through the
reply furnished in terms of the notice issued under Rule
22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004 wherein specific aspersion has been made upon the
writ petitioner of illegal transportation without any permit
challan.
12. The aforesaid aspersion has been refuted by the
petitioner in the reply furnished.
13. The authority has passed order and for the purpose
of consideration of the said reply even the physical
verification of the site has been conducted for the purpose
of making comparison with the Monthly Stock Register and
after making such comparison of the details furnished in
the Monthly Stock Register and the availability of the mines
products at the place, it has been found by the authority
that the mines products are being transported without any
permit challan.
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
14. In view of the aforesaid finding based upon the reply
furnished by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that
the same cannot be construed to be in violation of the
principle of natural justice, rather, at best the case of the
writ petitioner can be of not appreciating the reply of notice
issued in terms of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
15. The moment the issue of appreciation of the factual
aspect said to be not properly done, then the same will not
come under the fold of violation of principle of natural
justice.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the
ground of maintainability since alternative remedies are
available, both by way of appeal and revision, under the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
17. The writ petition is dismissed without going to the
merit of the issue with the liberty to the petitioner to search
out the alternative remedy.
18. If such authority will be approached within a period
of three weeks, then the authority shall decide the issue,
strictly in accordance with law within further period of six
weeks from the date of approaching.
19. It goes without saying that the authority while
deciding the issue will not be prejudiced by dismissal of the
present writ petition since the writ petition has been
2025:JHHC:22478-DB
dismissed on the ground of maintainability and, therefore,
the observation has been made that without entering into
the merit, we are dismissing the writ petition.
20. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Birendra/N.A.F.R.
