Anupam Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4831 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anupam Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                  2025:JHHC:25268-DB



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           W.P.(C) No.6720 of 2023
                                  ------
Anupam Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Nagendra
Prasad Singh R/o Village-Mundariya, P.O.-Basaura, P.S. Lesliganj,
District-Palamau (Jharkhand)        .... ....           Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
   Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-
   Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand at Ranchi Department of
   Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House,
   P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The Director of Mines, Directorate of Mines Department of Mines
   and Geology Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House,
   P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau P.O. & P.S.-Palamau,
   District-Palamau (Jharkhand)
6. The District Mining Officer, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar,
   District-Palamau (Jharkhand)
                              .....   ....      Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                   ------
      For the Petitioner            : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
      For the State                 : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
                                 ------
10/Dated: 25.08.2025

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        quashing     the       order    dated
             29.04.2022          passed      by       the     Deputy

Commissioner, Palamau as communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar whereby and whereunder the settlement of the Balu Ghat situated on

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

Amanat River over 1.50 acres in Mouza- Jolanga, Lesliganj Circle, District- Palamau in favour of the petitioner for 03 Years made vide auction held on 16.02.2016, LOI issued on 17.02.2016 and Lease Deed No. 2020/PAL/1440/BK1/1417 registered on 06.03.2020 has been terminated on arbitrary, illegal and extraneous grounds.

(ii) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to extend the lease period of the Balu Ghat for 10 Months 06 Days from the date of restoration of the Balu Ghat to the petitioner, as due to termination of the settlement of the Balu Ghat vide the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, the petitioner was deprived from lifting of sand from the Balu Ghat from 30.04.2022 to 05.03.2023 (10 Months 06 Days) causing irreparable monetary loss and injury to the petitioner.

(iii) For staying the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau as communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar, during pendency of the present writ petition.

(iv) For restraining the respondents from publishing any fresh General Notice of Auction for fresh settlement of the Balu Ghat to any other person, during pendency of the present writ petition.

(v) In alternative, for issuance of a direction

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner against the monetary loss and injury caused to the petitioner.

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 the Joint Secretary,

Government of Jharkhand, vide Letter No.

128/2012/226/M dated 25.01.2016, directed all Deputy

Commissioners of Jharkhand to grant settlements of Balu

Ghats for three financial years, effective from the date of

execution of the Settlement Agreements. In the General

Auction held on 16.02.2016, the petitioner was declared

as the highest bidder at Rs.10,73,000.00 for settlement of

a Balu Ghat situated on the Amanat River, over 1.50

acres bearing Plot No. 397, Thana- Lesliganj, Thana No.

341, Mouza- Jolanga of Juru, Gram Panchayat, Lesliganj

Circle, District Palamau. Consequently, a Letter of Intent

(L.O.I.) was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining

Officer, Palamau, on 17.02.2016, with certain terms and

conditions.

(ii) Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Lesliganj, issued a Land

Verification Report dated 15.11.2016 of the Balu Ghat

situated on Amanat River, for three financial years, which

was in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar Forest Division

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

vide letter no.1033 dated 28.02.2017 granted No

Objection Certificate/Forest Clearance for the said Balu

Ghat.

(iv) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the

environmental clearance certificate was granted to the

petitioner vide letter dated 17.08.2017 issued by the

Member Secretary-cum-Deputy Development

Commissioner, DEIAA, Palamau, Jharkhand.

(v) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau executed

the Lease Deed No. 2020/PAL/1440/BK1/1417 and

registered it on 06.03.2020, granting the petitioner

settlement rights for the Balu Ghat for three financial

years. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted Consent to

Operate (CTO) for the Balu Ghat which was granted by

the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on

08.05.2020.

(vi) The aforesaid lease deed number registered on

06.03.2020 granting settlement of the Balu Ghat to the

petitioner was valid for three financial years, w.e.f,

06.03.2020.

(vii) Before expiry of the lease period, the Deputy

Commissioner, Palamau passed an order dated

29.04.2022 as communicated to the petitioner vide letter

no.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 issued by the District Mining

Officer, Palamau, Medininagar, terminating the aforesaid

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

lease deed number registered on 06.03.2020. Hence, the

present writ petitioner has been filed.

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.,

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

(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 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

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

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

2025:JHHC:25268-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 application for the purpose of renewal in a case

2025:JHHC:25268-DB

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.)

Umesh-Abhishek/-A.F.R.