Jharkhand High Court

M/S Narsingh Lagdhir vs State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                               2025:JHHC:25160-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P.(C) No.668 of 2018
                                    ------
M/s Narsingh Lagdhir, through its Proprietor-Kamal Chawda, aged
about 48 yrs., S/o Late Narsingh Lagdhir, R/o P.O.-Bakudi, P.S.-
Talijhari, District-Sahebgunj.     .... ....                Petitioner
                            Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Mines Commissioner-Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
   District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner-Sahebgunj, P.O., P.S. & District-
   Sahebgunj.
4. District Mining Officer- Sahebgunj, P.O., P.S. & District-Sahebgunj.
5. Assistant Mining Officer-Sahebgunj, P.O., P.S. & District-
   Sahebgunj.                      .....     ....        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. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA
                                ------
06/Dated: 25.08.2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is directed against the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the

respondent no.2 in Revision Case No.69/2016, by which, revision

application of the petitioner has been dismissed and further a

direction be issued to respondent no.3 to extend the period of

lease of the petitioner from 5 years to 10 years.

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 he has

granted mining lease of stone over an area of 15.04

acres situated in Patnibona under P.S.-Taljhari,

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

District-Sahebgunj for the period of 10 years on

11.03.2000. Before expiry of the mining lease in the

year 2000, he has made an application for its

renewal for a period of further 10 years vide

application dated 09.10.2009 whereby the requisite

fee and the documents were also attached with the

renewal application.

(ii) Despite of making an application to renewal of the

mining lease for a further period of 10 years, the

lease was renewed only for a period of 5 years vide

order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the respondent

no.4.

(iii) Thereafter, again on 08.11.2014, the petitioner

applied for renewal of the lease by making

application for a period of 10 years but

unfortunately, the renewal was done for a period of

5 years, i.e., from 31.03.2015 to 2020. The

petitioner requested the respondent no.3 to renew

the mining lease for a period of 10 years. The

environmental clearance certificate was granted to

the petitioner before the renewal of mining lease in

the year, 2015. In the year, 2014, the petitioner also

submitted the mining plan as well as the progressive

Mines Closure Plan.

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

(iv) Admittedly the area in which the mining lease was

granted to the petitioner is a Gair Majrua land and

not a raiyati land and hence, respondents ought to

have renewed the mining lease of the petitioner for

a further period of 10 years.

(v) Vide letter dated 14.03.2016, the petitioner

represented before the Deputy Commissioner,

Sahebgunj to take into consideration the case of the

petitioner and increase the renewal period of mining

lease from 5-10 years.

(vi) In case of one Chandeswar Prasad Singh, the

Mines Commissioner Patna, Bihar vide order dated

02.02.1995 in Revision Case No.209 of 1994 has

been pleaded to allow the revision application and

extended the lease period from 5 years to 10 years.

Similarly, renewal of stone mining lease over an

area of 2.50 acres of land, has also been granted in

favour of M/s Shiv Shaktio Stone Works for a period

of 10 years by the Deputy Commissioner,

Sahebgunj.

(vii) It is the further case of the petitioner that the

respondents have failed to consider that the

petitioner had applied for renewal of the aforesaid

stone mining lease for 10 years and not for 5 years

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

and the environmental clearance certificate has also

been granted for 10 years.

(viii) In spite of the request of the petitioner for renewal of

the lease for the period of 10 years in view of

recommendation of competent authority, who has

declared the life of mine is 21 years and the

environmental clearance has also been granted for

the period of 10 years, the respondent no.3 without

considering the aforesaid fact, has refused to renew

the mining lease for the period of 10 years, hence,

the present petition.

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. Learned AC to AAG-IA 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

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

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 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

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

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 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 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.

2025:JHHC:25160-DB

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 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:JHHC:25160-DB

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.)