M/S. Kharkhar Stone Mines vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3620 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S. Kharkhar Stone Mines vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                           2025:JHHC:24387-DB




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W.P.(C) No.2608 of 2025

                              ------------

    M/s. Kharkhar Stone Mines, (a Partnership firm), having its office
    at Village Kharkhar, P.O. and P.S. Nawal Shahi, District Koderma,
    PIN 825418, through its Partner Md. Shahid Hussain, aged about 57
    years, son of Md. Shamid, resident of Village Kharkhar, P.O. and
    P.S. Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, PIN 825418
                                                ...       Petitioner

                                Versus

    1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and
       Geology Department, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal
       House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002
       (Jharkhand).
    2. Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of
       Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House),
       P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002
       (Jharkhand).
    3. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, having its office at District
       Collectorate, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District
       Koderma, PIN 825410 (Jharkhand).
    4. District Mining Officer, Koderma, having its office at District
       Collectorate, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District
       Koderma, PIN 825410 (Jharkhand).        ...      Respondents

                             ----------

Coram:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                     -------

    For the Petitioner          : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
    For the State               : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II

                               -----

    Order No.03/Dated 19.08.2025

    Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing order passed by Respondent- Authorities as contained in Memo No. 1722/M dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-4), wherein application filed by Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No. 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 has been rejected in a most illegal and arbitrary manner.

ii. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to consider and consequentially grant renewal of mining lease in favour of Petitioners, pertaining to mining lease of stone boulders over an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 for a period of 10 years commencing from 17.04.2010 to 16.04.2020 and consequentially grant lease in favour of Petitioner over the aforesaid area.

iii. Forissuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short 'JMMC Rules') vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

(Annexure-5), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-

6) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-7) do not prohibit grant of renewal of mining lease, but only provides, inter alia, that any new lease over 3 hectares of land would be granted in terms Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-8).

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ

petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:-

i. Petitioner was initially granted mining lease over a piece of land having an area of 1.36 acres situated at Mouza Kharkhar, Thana Nawal Shahi, District Koderma, Thana No. 207, appertaining to Khata Nos. 233, 24, 185 and 278, bearing Plot Nos. 3499(Part), 3500, 3501, 3510, 3514, 3516, 3515 and 3517 for a period of 10 years commencing from 17.04.2010 to 16.04.2020.

ii. Petitioner, prior to expiry of Mining Lease Deed, on 25.12.2019, filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in statutory Form-F and along with the said renewal application, Petitioner enclosed the requisite Challan towards deposit of renewal fee of Rs.

5000/-.

iii. Despite the fact that Petitioner filed application for renewal of its mining lease, said application for renewal was not being considered by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kodarma on the alleged sole ground that after amendment carried out by virtue of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

(Amendment) Rules, 2019, there is no provision for renewal of mining lease.

iv. Whenever petitioner contacted the office of Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Petitioner was not informed about the status of mining lease of Petitioner and it was verbally informed to Petitioner that its mining lease application for renewal of mining lease is deemed to have been rejected under law. Under the said circumstances, Petitioner filed a Revision application, being Revision Case No. 26 of 2024 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand. In the said Revision application, statement of fact cum reply was filed by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and it was allegedly stated that Petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease has been rejected on alleged ground that there is no provision for revision/extension of mining lease, vide order contained in Memo No. 1722/M, Koderma dated 18.10.2024. v. The order contained in Memo No. 1722/M dated 18.10.2024 was not communicated to Petitioner and Petitioner was unable to comprehend as to why its renewal application has been rejected. vi. However, subsequently, Petitioner obtained a copy of the said order from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma being order contained in Memo No. 1722/M, Koderma dated 18.10.2024 and from perusal of the said order, it is evident that Petitioner's application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for renewal of mining lease after the amendments carried out vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019.

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

vii. At the outset, it is stated that rejection of application of Petitioner for renewal of mining lease on the ground of alleged amendments carried out vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor MineralConcession (Amendment) Rules, 2019, is per se illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

viii. In context of the above, it is stated that State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Minor Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957, framed "Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and under Rule 22 of the said Rules, provisions have been incorporated for grant of mining lease and it has been provided, inter alia, that mining lease shall be granted as per statutory Form 'E' which has been prescribed under the Rules. ix. Statutory Form 'E' prescribed for grant of mining lease, in which lease has been granted in favour of Petitioners vide Part-VIII, contains therein Promissory Note which has been extended by State of Jharkhand to a lessee. Under the said Promissory Note contained in Part-VIII, Clause-3, it has been clearly provided, inter alia, that a mining lessee can claim renewal for one time of its lease for a period not more than the period for which original lease has been granted.

x. Rule 23 of JMMC Rules provides therein the mechanism for making application for renewal of mining lease, wherein it is provided, inter alia, that application for renewal of mining lease should be made minimum 90 days prior to expiry of the lease, but not before 180 days of the expiry of the lease, in statutory Form 'F' along with Application Fee of Rs. 5000/-, and in terms of further conditions stipulated therein.

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

xi. Petitioners' mining lease was scheduled to expire and, accordingly, in terms of Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, Petitioners filed an application in statutory Form 'F' before Respondent-authority for renewal of their mining lease. In this context, it is stated that as per procedure, said application is to be filed in the name of Collector/District Mining Officer and the same is to be submitted in the office of District Mining Officer. xii. It is categorically stated herein that Petitioner filed its application by depositing requisite Application Fee of Rs. 5000/-before the office of the District Mining Officer along with all requisite/necessary documents as required for renewal of mining lease. xiii. Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or its officials, on the pretext of alleged amendments carried out under JMMC Rules, 2004, are not granting renewal of mining lease. In this context, it is stated that vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, Rule 9 of JMMC Rules, 2004 was amended extensively and, to the best of the understanding of Petitioner, pursuant to said amendment, it was provided, inter alia, that mining lease for minor minerals contained in Schedule-2 of the Rules having an area of more than 5 hectares of land, shall be granted through the process of Auction. It is humbly stated that said Rules only provided for grant of fresh mining lease, that too, over Raiyati land having an area of more than 5 hectares through the process of auction and said Rule had not put an embargo of auction in the matter pertaining to renewal of mining lease.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority

concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

fact in right perspective.

4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II appearing for the respondent-

State has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025

on 08.08.2025.

5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for

the petitioner.

6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that

the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said

judgment passed by this Court.

7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the

parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ

petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C)

No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject

matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for

ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are

being referred as under:-

15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e.,

(i) Whether the lease can be renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension.

(ii) Whether seeking extension of

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period.

(iii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule

9(च), wherein, the embargo has

been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022.

(iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case.

(v) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is held to be per incuriam.

22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 (ङ) and (च), wherein,

the issue of renewal of lease/license has

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9(च) provides that in

any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022.

23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022.

24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(छ) as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction.

25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (ज)(12) as quoted

and referred hereinabovethat the mandate of Rule 9(च) will be applicable

even if the area of land is less than 5

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

hectares.

26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9(ङ).

27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9 (च) putting complete

restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction.

42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9(च) of

the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner.

44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9(ङ) of the JMMC Rules and once the

application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9(च).

46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision."

9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case,

2025:JHHC:24387-DB

has found that the issues involved herein are identical to that of the

case, which has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on

08.08.2025.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the

judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025.

11. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Rajnish/R.K.-A.F.R.