M/S Kamal Prabhat Stone vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3673 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Kamal Prabhat Stone vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 20 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                 2025:JHHC:24498-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           W.P.(C) No.3368 of 2022
                                ------
M/s Kamal Prabhat Stone, (A Proprietorship firm) having its office at
Domchanch, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma, Jharkhand,
PIN-825418 through its proprietor Surendra Kumar Mehta, aged
about 56 yrs., Son of late Vishwanath Mehta, Resident of
Domchanch, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, Dist. Koderma, Jharkhand,
PIN-825418.
                                    ...   ...             Petitioner
                          Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Mines and Geology
   Department having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.
   Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department having
   its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi,
   Jharkhand.
3. The Director of Mines, Mines and Geology Department having its
   office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi,
   Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, having its office at
   Collectorate building, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, District-Koderma,
   Jharkhand.
5. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma,
   District-Koderma, Jharkhand.
6. The Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma,
   District-Koderma, Jharkhand ....      ....       Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                   ------
      For the Petitioner          : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
      For the State                 Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
                                  : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P II
                               ------
05/Dated: 20.08.2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

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

Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: -

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order/s direction(s)including writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

representation filed by the petitioner dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) and to consequentially extend the tenure of Mining Lease of the petitioner pertaining to "Stone Boulders" situated at Plot No. 5688(P), Village Domchanch, Thana-

Domchanch, District-Koderma, having an area of 5.50 Acres for a period of four years and three months and/or upto April, 2026.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that due to inaction of the respondent authorities for delay in granting renewal of Mining Lease to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and the petitioner is entitled for extension of the period of mining lease deed for four years and three months and/or upto April 2026 as against the validity of the Lease Deed up to 05.01.2022, especially because for the period 05.01.2012 to 04.04.2016, Lease Deed of the petitioner was not executed by the respondent authorities for no fault of the petitioner."

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

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

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Mining Lease Deed

was executed for "Stone Boulders" in favour of petitioner for a

period of 10 years from 06.01.2002 to 05.01.2012 in terms of

the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. The

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

petitioner carried out the mining activity pursuant to the

aforesaid Lease Deed granted in his favour and as per the

Lease Deed, Petitioner was further entitled for renewal of its

mining lease for a further period of 10 years. Under the said

circumstances, petitioner applied for renewal of his lease

deed on 26.08.2010 before the competent authority within the

statutory time and before the expiry of the mining lease.

(ii) Subsequent to the said application, a letter was issued vide

letter no. 1255 dated 08.09.2010 by the Assistant Mining

Officer, Koderma to the petitioner for submitting relevant

documents for renewal of lease deed. After receiving the

aforesaid letter from the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma,

petitioner on 30.09.2010 submitted all the relevant

documents before the concerned office.

(iii) The mining Lease Deed which was granted to the petitioner,

was for an area of less than 5 hectares and in respect of the

said Lease Deed, there was no requirement for obtaining any

Environment Clearance and sanction of Mining Plan.

(iv) Petitioner applied for renewal of its mining lease within

stipulated time, i.e., on 26.08.2010, and after the Judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 27th February, 2012, petitioner

took steps for approval of its mining plan including obtaining

Environment Clearance. The respondent authorities have not

taken any action for renewal of the lease deed of the

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

petitioner and the lease deed had expired. Under the said

circumstances, petitioner filed a revision application being

Revision Case No.50 of 2011 before the Mines

Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi for extension of time for

consideration of his application for renewal of mining lease

and the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, vide its order dated

17.03.2012 granted extension of time for renewal of mining

lease of the Petitioner.

(v) After grant of extension of time from the Mines

Commissioner, Jharkhand, again a memo was issued by the

District Mining Officer, Koderma to the petitioner vide Memo

no. 1320/M Koderma dated 01.06.2012 for submission of

relevant documents. A reply was given by the petitioner on

15.6.2012 regarding the submission of the documents in

which, he has stated that the petitioner has already furnished

all the required documents on 30.09.2010. So far as

document to be submitted at Sl. No. 1 is concerned, the

representation/application of the petitioner is pending before

the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. In this regard,

letters have also been sent by the District Mining Officer to

the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. Further,

regarding MOEF, petitioner replied that since the

Environment Clearance Certificate is issued in State of

Orissa and is affirmed by Central Government, therefore,

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

further six months time was requested to furnish the required

documents. The petitioner on 17.11.2012 submitted his

Mining Plan before the District Mining Officer, Koderma for

necessary action.

(vi) One application was given by the petitioner to the Director,

Impact Assessment Division (mining) Ministry of Environment

and Forest, Govt. of India on 25.06.2012 for Pre-Environment

Clearance for Domchanch Stone Quarry. Since, SEIAA has

not been formed in Jharkhand State, so the petitioner further

requested for consideration of his application for obtaining

Environment Clearance. Subsequent to the application filed

by the petitioner before the Ministry of Environment & Forest,

the said application was processed and forwarded to the

expert appraisal committee for its approval. Petitioner was

also directed to depute a senior officer along with consultant

to attend the meeting of the expert appraisal committee to be

held on 22.11.2012

(vii) In the expert appraisal committee meeting the project of the

petitioner was duly approved for grant of Environment

Clearance subject to the approval of the mining plan. The

petitioner was forwarded the summary report of its meeting.

Vide Memo No. 391 dated 10.10.2014, approval of mining

plan along with progressive Mine Closure Plan of the

Petitioner under Rule 34D of Jharkhand MMCR, 2004 was

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

granted.

(viii) Further, vide Letter No. EC/SEIAA/2015-16/792/2015/1306

dated 17.08.2015, the Member Secretary, State Level

Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand issued

Environment Clearance for the Project of the petitioner. No

work was carried out by the Petitioner from 2012 to 2016. The

Production Chart issued by District Mining Office. Koderma

vide Memo No 345 dated 01.07.2015 as well as Memo

No.461 dated 29.03.2019 shows that no production was

carried out from 2012-2016.

(ix) Vide Memo no. 385 dated 26.03.2016 issued by Assistant

Mining Officer, Koderma, the petitioner was informed that his

Mining Lease has been renewed by the order of Deputy

Commissioner, Koderma dated 23.03.2016 on certain terms

and conditions. The petitioner was directed to provide

necessary documents within 15 days. For renewal of the

Mining Lease of the petitioner, a Lease Deed was executed

on 04.04.2016. The said renewal was not granted from the

date of execution of Lease Deed dated 04.04.2016 for a

period of 10 years, i.e., up to 03.04.2026, but, renewal was

granted for a period of 10 years commencing from

06.01.2012 to 05.01.2022.

(x) Thereafter, the Supplementary Lease Deed by and between

the Petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

extension of three months of lease of the petitioner upto

31.3.2022 was executed on 14.12.2021.

(xi) Due to renewal of Mining Lease Deed of the Petitioner from

January, 2012 instead of April 2016, the effective tenure of

renewal of mining lease of the Petitioner has been reduced

from 10 years to only 6 years. The Petitioner during the

period from January, 2012 till April, 2016 was restrained from

carrying out the mining activity.

(xii) Petitioner was entitled for renewal of his mining lease with

effect from April, 2016 for a period of 10 years, but due to

action of Respondent-authorities, Petitioner has been made

to immensely suffer as renewal of his mining lease has been

granted only from January, 2012 instead of April, 2016. The

Petitioner, for no fault of his own, was restrained from

carrying out the mining activity.

(xiii) Petitioner filed repeated representations before Respondent-

authorities, including his representation dated 11.11.2019,

filed before the Respondent-Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih,

with copies thereof to the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand

and Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, wherein, Petitioner

requested for extension of the period of his mining lease up

to April, 2026. No decision has been taken by Respondent-

authorities on the said representation and even tenure of

Mining Lease Deed of the Petitioner has not been extended,

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

which is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

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

concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated

the fact in right perspective.

4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to AG 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

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension.

(ii) Whether seeking extension of 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 been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

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

hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9(च) will be

applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 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

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

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.

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

2025:JHHC:24498-DB

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, 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.)

Rohit/-A.F.R.