[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bijay Krishna Sahay vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P. (C) No. 6429 of 2023
Bijay Krishna Sahay, aged about 76 Years, Son of Late
Maharaj Sahay at present residing at Shastri Nagar, Giridih,
P.O.-Giridih, P.S.- Giridih, District-Giridih, Jharkhand.
Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3.Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4.The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih,
District Giridih.
5.District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih,
District Giridih..
6.Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih,
District Giridih. ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Amahi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG
--------
CAV on 28/11/2025 Pronounced on 12/12/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
Prayer
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as quoted as
under:
"For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s) direction(s)
particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the
order dated-31.01.2023 communicated vide Memo NO.-267,
dated-03.02.2023 (Annexure-13) passed in Revision Case
No.-55 of 2015 by the respondent no.-3 by which without
considering the entire material available on the record
dismissed the revision application preferred against the
cancellation of lease vide Letter No.-594, dated-26.06.2003
and for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.-594,
dated-26.06.2003 (Annexure-4) by the respondent no.-4
(Deputy Commissioner, Giridih) duly communicated by the
Respondent No.-5 (District Mining Officer) by which without
any notice or show cause the lease granted on 04.02.1997
for the purpose of mining lease of stone for the area 1.50
acre situated at Mouza-Chachaghara under district-Giridih
has been cancelled.
And
For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) direction(s)
particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon
the respondents to allow to carrying on the business on the
lease hold area for the none working period which has
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
illegally been closed vide order dated-.26.06.2003 by
extending the period for which the petitioner is entitled in
terms of the agreement and lease granted by the State Govt.
to him for which the petitioner has already paid all the legal
dues and in absence of none working material stones are
being stolen away by regularly and further the respondents
be directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.34
crores for the period of 3 years 8 months i.e. approximately
Rs. 10,000/-per day in lieu of the none working for illegal
closure inspite of paying all the dues as the petitioner has
suffered lot and for that he has suffered medically for
inaction on the part of the respondents."
Factual Aspect:
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made
in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated, reads
as under:
3. The petitioner has applied for mining lease for stone in
terms of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules in
respect of area constituted in village Chachdhera, Plot No.
547 (P) for an area of 1.5 acres in the district of Giridih. It is
stated that after following all the procedure and enquiry, the
mining lease for stone was granted for ten years with certain
term(s) and condition(s) and to that effect an agreement was
entered vide agreement dated 04.02.1997 for the period of
ten years (04.02.1997 to February 2007). Accordingly, the
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
petitioner started the work and paid all the royalties and
rents etc.
4. However, all of a sudden, one Munna Hazam disputed
with regard to the lease hold area claiming that the land
belongs to him and not the State Government property.
Therefore, the work was stopped on 11.01.2000 by the
petitioner and till January, 2010, no dues were there as the
petitioner has paid the royalty and Dead Rent etc. in terms
of the Agreement.
5. Since the private person has disputed the matter with
regard to the land in question, hence the petitioner filed
application before respondent no.-3 which was instituted as
Miscellaneous Case No. 15/2001 in which the petitioner has
prayed for providing protection for doing the work on the
leased hold area. Thereafter the matter was enquired into by
the Deputy Commissioner time to time and proceeding has
been continued since long and the respondents themselves
stated that the work in the lease hold area is stopped for
last 2-3 years, as it will be evident from the letter dated
09.07.2003.
6. In the meantime, notice was issued by respondent no.-
5 for depositing the dead rent from 2001 and another notice
dated 31.07.2002 was also issued allegedly contrary to the
terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
04.02.1997 wherein it has specifically been averred that
payment of surface rent and dead rent is not to be paid if
the mining lease is closed, as would be evident from clause
4 of the agreement.
7. But without considering the aforesaid averments and
documents, the respondents-authorities issued impugned
order dated 03.09.2003 by which it was directed to make
payment of dead rent and interest thereupon of the lease
hold area and a certificate proceeding being Certificate Case
No. 6/2003-04 dated 24.10.2003 was also initiated before
respondent no. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed objection
under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act, 1914 [in short 'Act, 1914'].
8. It is stated that during pendency of the certificate case,
even enquiry was done by the respondent upon the order of
respondent no. 3 in which report was submitted on
03.07.2004 in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2001 specifically
mentioning therein the fact that the private person on the
basis of forged paper stopped the work and tried to grab the
government land.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that though such finding
has been given in the enquiry conducted by the DCLR,
Giridih in the Misc. Case No. 15 of 2001 but in the
meantime impugned order vide Letter No. 594 dated
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
26.06.2003(Annexure-4) was passed mentioning therein
that in terms of order dated 24.05.2003 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, the lease has been cancelled
for the remaining period though it is alleged that no order
dated 26.06.2003 was communicated to the petitioner.
10. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court
by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6174 of 2004, which
was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2004 with an
observation that the petitioner may appear before the
Certificate Officer and take all the points that may be
available with him and consequently the Certificate Officer
shall consider the objection and pass appropriate order.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation
on 24.12.2004 and petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1914
denying his liability. The respondents-authorities also
appeared before the Certificate Court and filed rejoinder to
the petition filed by the petitioner.
12. Pursuant thereto, the Certificate Officer passed order
dated 23.09.2005 denying the claim of the petitioner.
13. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner again approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7300 of 2005, which was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.03.2015 with
liberty to the petitioner to approach appellate authority.
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
14. Accordingly, the petitioner filed revision being Revision
Case No. 55 of 2015, which is still pending.
15. However, the petitioner deposited the amount dues
passed by the Certificate Officer to the tune of Rs. 47,098/-
on 23.11.2015.
16. Thereafter the respondent no.2 passed order dated
02.03.2016 whereby it was directed to produce the royalty
clearance certificate relating to certificate case and other
statutory clearance.
17. Petitioner intimated by filing supplementary affidavit
before respondent no. 3 but no order has been passed and
the matter has been delayed for seven years, as such the
petitioner suffered a lot for his no fault.
18. Petitioner deposited all the royalty dues without any
work but since the matter is subjudiced and the materials
are being stolen by unknown, as such the petitioner filed
application on 20.02.2017 before respondent no. 5, which
was inquired into and it was found that illegal mining of
stones are being carried out by the unknown but no action
was taken, therefore, the petitioner again approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2472 of 2018, which was
disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2021 directing the
concerned respondent to dispose of the revision case being
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
Revision Case No. 55 of 2015 within three months from the
date of receipt/production of copy of the order.
19. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation
before respondent no. 3 in Revision Case No. 55 of 2015
mentioning all points but the revision application was
dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2023 which was
communicated vide memo no. 267 dated
03.02.2023(Annexure-13).
20. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the revisional
authority dated 31.01.2023 which was communicated vide
memo no. 267 dated 03.02.2023(Annexure-13) and order
contained in Memo No. 594 dated 26.06.2003(Annexure-4),
the petitioner has again approached this Court, which is the
subject matter of instant writ petition.
21. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect
that the petitioner was initially granted mining lease over an
area of 1.50 acres, Plot No. 547(P), in Mauza Chachaghara
under Jamua P.S., Giridih for a period of ten years vide
agreement dated 04.02.1997.
22. However, for alleged non-compliance of terms and
conditions of the lease agreement, the Deputy
Commissioner, Giridih vide letter dated 24.05.2003, which
was communicated to him vide letter dated
26.06.2003(Annexure-4), pre-maturely terminated the said
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
lease agreement. The petitioner took the ground that
impugned order of pre-mature termination was never
communicated to him whereas the respondents-authorities
have taken the ground that due legal notice and demand
notices were served to him.
23. The Revisional authority considering the averment
made by the parties dismissed the revision application vide
order dated 03.02.2023(Annexure-13) declining to interfere
with the order of termination of lease deed passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, which is impugned in the
instant writ petition.
Submission of the Petitioner:
24. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the order of termination of
lease deed is improper since the same has been passed
without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed
the impugned order dated 26.06.2003 of pre-mature
termination of lease deed wherein no consideration has
been given with respect to the issue of providing opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner. Further submission has been
made that the lease was granted for a period of 10 years
from 04.02.1997 to 03.02.2007 but the lease was pre-
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
maturely terminated due to which the petitioner has
incurred huge amount of loss.
26. It has been contended that although in the counter
affidavit reference of notices have been mentioned to be
given to the petitioner but as a matter of fact these notices
have never been served upon the petitioner and as such as
per the requirement under the law i.e., as per Rule 24 (3) of
the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, no such order is
to be passed without providing effective opportunity of
hearing.
27. Further submission has been made that the petitioner
has moved before the revisional authority highlighting this
point but without taking into consideration these facts
merely on the ground that the terms and conditions of the
lease deed has not been adhered to the revisional authority
has declined to interfere with the decision taken by the
Deputy Commissioner cancelling the lease deed.
28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the basis
of aforesaid ground has submitted that impugned order
dated 31.01.2023 communicated vide memo no. 267 dated
03.02.2023(Annexure-13) in Revision Case No. 55 of 2015
and order dated 26.06.2003(Annexure-4) be quashed and
set aside.
Submission on behalf of respondents:
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
29. Per Contra, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to
Advocate General, has submitted that the present writ
petitioner is not fit to be entertained since the prayer so
made as is being made in the present writ petition has
already been refused to be interfered with vide order dated
30.11.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6174 of 2004.
30. It has been contended that the writ petitioner has
chosen not to challenge order dated 30.11.2004 passed in
W.P.(C) No.6174 of 2004 before the higher forum and once
the said order has been passed declining to interfere with
the order of termination of mining lease, it is not available
for the writ petitioner to challenge the same by filing the
instant writ petition.
31. It has been contended by referring to order dated
26.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7300 of 2005 wherein
liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority but as has been submitted in course of hearing by
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that whatever
liability has been casted upon the writ petitioner, regarding
the Dead Rent and Surface Rent, which has been alleged to
be not paid, has already been paid and as such the writ
petitioner chosen not to prefer appeal, which itself suggest
that the moment the petitioner has considered himself the
defaulter in not making the payment of Dead Rent and
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
Surface Rent, it is not available for the writ petitioner to
contest the case by taking the ground that none of the
conditions of the lease deed has been flouted.
32. The argument has been advanced that the validity of
the lease was for 10 years from the year 1997 operative till
2007 but during subsisting period of lease, it was cancelled
and even if the writ petition will be allowed, the writ
petitioner will not be benefitted in view of enactment of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 [in short
'JMMC Rules, 2004'] wherein specific provision has been
provided under Rule 9(1)(ka), (Cha), 9 (Chaha),9(12) that
there cannot be any extension or continuation of lease deed
after 31.03.2022.
33. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the impugned order(s) requires
no interference and writ petition lacks merit and is fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis
34. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitions as
also the counter affidavits filed by the respondents.
35. This Court, on appreciation of the argument advanced
on behalf of parties, is of the view that following issues are
required to be considered:
- 12 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
I. Whether it is available for the writ petitioner to raise the
ground of illegality in the cancellation of the lease deed
once he has accepted the default by making payment of
the defaulted amount of Dead Rent and Surface Rent by
complying with the order passed by the Certificate Officer?
II. Whether the ground of not providing the opportunity of
being heard is to be entertained at this stage when the
petitioner has admitted the default of not making payment
of Dead Rent and Surface Rent which is the terms and
conditions of the lease deed and by not contesting the final
decision taken by the Certificate Officer by dealing with
the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the
Act, 1914?
III. Whether even accepting the case of the writ petitioner
is there then can any relief be extended in favour of the
writ petitioner in view of enactment of Jharkhand Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as amended time to time
on creation of the State of Jharkhand superseding the
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 wherein
specific provision has been made by way of statutory
restriction that there cannot be any extension or renewal of
the lease after 31.03.2022?
- 13 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
36. Since issue No. I and II are inter-linked to each other,
as such for the sake of convenience they are taken up
together.
37. This Court in order to consider these issues needs to
refer herein the terms and conditions of the lease deed
dated 04.02.1997(Annexure-1), which contains one of the
conditions of making payment of amount of Dead
Rent/Royalty, Surface Rent etc. as per MMDR Act, 1957.
For ready reference the relevant clause of the lease deed is
being quoted as under:
"Part-V
RENTS AND ROYALTIES RESERVED BY THIS LEASE:
1.TO PAY DEED RENT OR ROYALTY WHICHEVER IS
GREATER:
The lessee shall pay in respect of any quarterly
period or half yearly period as may be fixed by the Deputy
Commissioner either the dead rent reserved by clause 2 of
this part or the sum of the royalties, reserved by clause 3 of
this part whichever is greater. If the lease permits the
working of more than one mineral in the same area, the
Deputy Commissioner may fix separate dead rent in
respect of each mineral."
PROVIDED the Lessee shall be liable to pay the dead rent
or royalty in respect of each mineral which over be higher
in mount but not both.
2. RATE OF MODE OF PAYMENT OF DEAD RENT -
Subject to the provisions of Clause I of this Part and from
the to during the subsistence of the lease the losso0 shall
pay to the District Mining Officer, Giridih in twelve equal
monthly installments on the first day of following months
each year dead rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees
Three thousands) per acre per annum of the lands
- 14 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
described in PART I of this Schedule subject to revision at
any time by the State Government by notification of
modification of Schedule I of this Rule. The Lessee shall not
claim any remission of dead rent on the ground that he is
not allowed by raiyats to go and work upon the raiyati
lands because the Government grants the mineral rights
only in the Mining lease and not the surface right.
3. RATE AND MODE OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY
Subject to the provision of Clause I of this part the lessee
shall during the subsistence of this lease pay to the State
Government in twelve equal installments on the 15th day of
the following month with monthly return in each month
royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the
leased area at the rate of Rs.25/- (Twenty five) per cubže
metro or at the rate for the time being specified in the
Second Schedule to the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 197
4. PAYMENT OF SURFACE RENT :-
The lessee shall pay rent to the State Government in
respect of all parts of the surface of the said lands which
shall from time to time be occupied or used by the Lessee
under the authority of those presents at the rate of Rs.
1000.00 (Rupees Ono thousand) per annum per acre of the
area or at the rates as may be fixed by the Deputy
Commissioner from time to time so occupied or used and so
in proportion for any area less than an acre during the
period from the commencement of such occupation or use
until the area shall cease to be so occupied or used and
shall so far as possible ba restored to its original condition
which rent shall be paid upon each of the quarterly dates
hereinbefore appointed for the payment of installments of
the certain annual dead rent.
PROVIDED that no such rent shall be payable in
respect of the occupation and use of the area comprised in
any roads or ways to which the public have full right to
access.
- 15 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
5. The Lessee shall duly and regularly pay to the
appropriate authority all Coasos, Taxes and local dues in
respect of the leased area, the said minerals or the working
of the mines in addition to the rent and royalty so payable
as aforesaid.
PART-VI.
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE RENTS AND ROYALTIES
1. Rent and Royalties to be free deduction etc:-
The rent and royalties mentioned in Part V of this Schedule
shall be paid free from any deductions to the State
Government at District Mining Office, Giridih and in such
manner as the State Government may direct.
2. Mode of computation of loyalty -
For the purposes of computing the said royalties the lessee
shall keep a correct account of the mineral produced and
dispatched. The accounts as well as the quantity of the
mineral in stock or in the process dispatch may be checked
by any officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Monthly account to be sent to State Government -
The accounts for each month in respect of raising, stock,
sale, dispatch, local consumption, royalty and rent duo and
paid shall be submitted within 15 days of the month
following and a true copy signed by the lessee or his
authorized agent shall be sent in triplicate to the competent
officer thereafter in a Form not may be prescribed from Line
to time by the Statement Government.
4. Interest on arrear payments :-
The Lessee shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 24%
per annum on royalty amount and remaining payable to
the State Government.
5. Course of action if rent and royalties are not paid in
time:-
Should the royalty or rent reserved and made payable by
the leaso be not paid within one month next after the date
fixed in the lease for the payment of the same, the Deputy
Commissioner may enter upon the premises and distrain
all or any of the mineral or beneficiated produces thereof or
moveable property therein or of so much of them as w^ll
- 16 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
suffice for the satisfaction of the rent or royalties duo and
all costs and expenses occasioned by the non-payment
thereof. If any royalty or rent remains at any time unpaid
for three calendar months after the date on which it is due
the Deputy Commissioner may determine the lease and
take possession of the premises comprised thereon. These
rights shall be without prejudice to the right of the Deputy
Commissioner to realise the dues under the Bihar Public
Demands Recovery Act or any statutory Act or Rules
thereof for the time being in force.
38. The notices (Annexure-3 of the counter Affidavit) have
been given to the petitioner as required to be given under
Rule 21(5) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession
Rules,1972 the rule under which the lease deed was
executed in the year 1997 i.e., prior to bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Bihar. The occasion for issuing of notice
upon the writ petitioner was that the amount of Dead
Rent/Royalty, Surface Rent etc. was not being paid.
39. The aforesaid fact is admitted by the petitioner by
virtue of the fact that even in spite of notice issued to the
petitioner the amount of Dead Rent and Surface Rent has
not been paid which led the authority to assess the said
amount and treated it to be the public demand within the
meaning of Section 3 of the Act, 1914.
40. Thereafter, the requisitioning authority has made
requisition to the Certificate Officer for recovery in exercise
of power under Section 5 of the Act, 1914. The certificate
proceeding was initiated vide C.C. No. 06/03-04 to realize
- 17 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
the dues amount under the Act, 1914. The Certificate
Officer has issued notice under Section 7 of the PDR Act,
1914 calling upon the writ petitioner to submit its objection
as required to be submitted before the mining officer under
Section 9 of the Act, 1914.
41. The writ petitioner has submitted the objection but the
certificate officer has not found itself satisfied with the
explanation furnished by way of opposition and confirmed
the liability as has been casted upon by the requisitioning
officer holding the writ petitioner to be certificate debtor by
order dated 23.09.2005(Annexure-7).
42. Here, the relevant provision of PDR Act, 1914 i.e.,
Section 5,6,7 and 9 are being referred herein:
5. Requisition for certificate in other cases. - (1) When
any public demand payable to any person other than the
Collector is due such person may send to the Certificate
Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form:
Provided that in the case of an order framed by a liquidator
under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 [2 of 1912] the
written requisition shall be sent by the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Bihar and Orissa.
(2) Every such requisition shall be signed and verified in
the prescribed manner, and except in such cases as may
be prescribed, shall be chargeable with a fee of the amount
which would be payable under the Court-fees Act, 1870
(VII of 1870) in respect of a plaint for the recovery of a sum
of money equal to that stated in the requisition as being
due.
Note 1. - Damages under Section 68 of the Bengal Tenancy
Act, or Section 175 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act cannot
- 18 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
be included in certificates for arrears of rent. [Note 2. -
Requisitions made in respect of public demands payable to
Government shall not be chargeable with any Court-fee
(Board's Notification No. 4-4169, dated the 15th July,
1970)].
Note 3. - Government are pleased to exempt the
Encumbered estates in Chota Nagpur and all Court of
Wards estates in Bengal having properties in this province
from pre-payment of ad valorem and process fees in
certificate cases on the understanding that no question of
remission of the fees will be considered, however insolvent
the estates will be. Government are also pleased to extend
the concession to the Wards estates in Bihar which have
difficulty in finding the money for purchase of stamps in
advance on the aforesaid condition and also on the
condition that estate should be exempted from pre-payment
of fee for a given period.
[Memo No. 11198 R-l W-64, dated the 26th October, 1934,
of the Government of Bihar and Orissa, Revenue
Department.]
Note 4. - Government have exempted from pre-payment of
ad valorem Court-fee, certificates issued under the Bihar
and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, on condition
that the Court-fee will be the first charge on any sum
realised in cash. The Court-fee payable on a requisition for
a certificate under a liquidator's order under Section 44 or
an award under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa
Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, is a Court-fee of [75 paise
and not an ad-valorem Court-fee]
6. Filing of certificate on requisition. - On receipt of
any such requisition the Certificate Officer, if he is satisfied
that the demand is recoverable and that recovery by suit is
not barred by law, may sign a certificate, in the prescribed
form, stating that the demand is due and shall include in
the certificate the fee if any paid under Section 5, sub-
section (2); and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his
office.
- 19 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
7. Service of notice and copy of certificate on
certificate debator. - When a certificate has been filled in
the office of a certificate officer under section 4 or section 6,
he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debator , in
the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed manner,
a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate.
9. Filing of petition denying liability. - (1) The
certificate debtor may within thirty days from the service of
the notice required by Section 7, or where the notice has
not been duly served then within thirty days from the
execution of any process for enforcing the certificate,
present to the Certificate Officer in whose office the
certificate is filed or to the Certificate Officer who is
executing the certificate, a petition, in the prescribed form,
signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his
liability, in whole or in part.
(2) If any such petition is presented to a Certificate Officer
other than the Certificate Officer in whose office the original
certificate is filed, it shall be sent to the latter officer for
disposal."
43. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has
contended before this Court that the amount which was not
paid i.e. amount of Dead Rent and Surface Rent, has been
paid without contesting the order passed by the certificate
officer rejecting the opposition filed under Section 9 of the
Act, 1914.
44. Thus, it is evident that the defaulted amount has been
admitted by the petitioner the moment he has chosen not to
challenge the order dated 23.09.2005 passed in C.C. No.
06/03-04, by the certificate officer rather he has chosen to
make payment of the said amount.
- 20 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
45. One of the conditions in the lease deed, as has been
referred herein, is the payment of the amount of
Royalty/Dead Rent as mandated under Section 9 and
Section 9A of the MMDR Act, 1957 and as such the
authority has taken decision to cancel the lease deed.
46. The question of non-issuance of notice is the core of
the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner. However, in
the counter affidavit three notices vide letter no.-196/M
dated 11.02.2002, letter no.-632/M dated 31.07.2002 and
letter no.-1006/M dated 19.12.2002(Annexure-B series),
have been stated to be served upon the petitioner which has
been mentioned along with memo number and date.
Admittedly, there is no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit
denying such statement made by the respondents.
47. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has however
denied that the petitioner has received any such notice
without filing any rebuttal reply on oath.
48. This Court needs to refer herein that if the ground has
been taken by the party to the proceeding on oath and if the
same is being denied or disputed by other, then it is the
bounden duty of the other party to deny it on oath. There
cannot be any denial by making oral submission.
49. Further the question of issuance of notice has also
been considered by this Court by taking the admission on
- 21 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
the part of the writ petitioner admitting the liability of Dead
Rent and Surface Rent as per lease deed dated
04.02.1997(Annexure-1) between the parties, which was to
be paid by the writ petitioner. Since the said amount has
been paid by the writ petitioner thus the question of
issuance of notice has become irrelevant, if the writ
petitioner himself has accepted the liability by making
payment of the said amount. However, after contesting up
to the level of Certificate Proceeding by filing objection under
Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the petitioner chosen not to
prefer appeal against the said order.
50. On the question of notice which is being argued, this
Court is of the view that the notice means that the
concerned litigant against whom adverse decision is
proposed to be taken then such litigant is required to know
about the irregularity so as to defend himself; meaning
thereby, the litigant concerned must be apprised regarding
the issue of irregularity for the purpose of providing an
opportunity of hearing.
51. The principle of natural justice is also not a
straightjacket formula rather it is to be assessed on the
basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in a
case where the litigant concerned is knowing about the
irregularity and there is no chance of defending by disputing
- 22 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
the said irregularity i.e., if the litigant concerned is
admitting the aforesaid fact then there is no reason for
issuance of show cause/notice or its service on the principle
that in a case of admission there will be no chance of
changing the situation, reference in this regard may be
taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case Escorts Farms Ltd. vs. Commissioner,
Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, reported in
(2004) 4 SCC 281, wherein it has been held as under:
"64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable
right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory
procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural
justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands
and some other transferees, we have found that the
terms of government grant did not permit transfers of
land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand
of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard,
would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so,
when on this legal question all affected parties have got
full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in
this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are
to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for
completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of
any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view
of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore,
refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our
discretionary powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India."
52. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors.,
- 23 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
(2015) 8 SCC 519 their Lordships have held at paragraph-
39 which is being reproduced as under:
"39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the
present case as the issue relates to giving of notice
before taking action. While emphasizing that the
principles of natural justice cannot be applied in
straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given.
We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of
adhering to the principles of natural justice which are
grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness,
accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals,
etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for
some reason- perhaps because the evidence against
the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is
felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference"-
meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate
conclusion reached by the decisionmaker."
53. Adverting to the present case, herein also the writ
petitioner has admitted the irregularity by depositing the
amount of Dead Rent and Surface Rent, but belatedly i.e.,
after cancellation of lease deed. The terms and conditions of
the lease deed contains that if any of the terms and
conditions will be flouted then the competent authority will
have right to cancel the lease deed.
54. The condition of the lease deed since is bilateral
contract and as such the same is strictly to be adhered to
by the signatory of the lease deed.
55. Further it is settled position of law that a concluded
contract pre supposes the existence of at least two parties
with mutual rights and obligations and once a concluded
- 24 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
contract comes into existence, it is axiomatic that such
rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the
terms and conditions thereof, reference in this regard be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma Vrs. HDFC Bank
Ltd., 2025 INSC 473.
56. Further, it requires to refer herein the settled position
of law that once the parties have accepted the terms and
conditions of lease or any agreement, it binds the parties
and there cannot be any breach of terms and conditions.
Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar
and Another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 551 wherein it has
been held that it must be borne in mind that the agreement
between the parties was a written agreement and therefore
the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the
agreement.
57. Further, the law is well settled that once the terms and
conditions of the agreement have been accepted by the
parties, it is not available to them to assail the same,
reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panna Lal
and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported
- 25 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
in (1975) 2 SCC 633 wherein it has been held that the
licensee having voluntarily accepted the contract and after
having fully exploited to its advantage the contract to the
exclusion of other, cannot resile from the contract and
cannot challenge the terms either on the ground of
inconvenient.
58. It requires to refer herein the settled position of law
that if any terms and conditions have been agreed upon by
the parties the same cannot be relaxed by the High Court
sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
otherwise it will amount to re-write the terms and
conditions of contract as has been held in the case of Union
Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and
Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11
it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter
the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties, for
ready reference the same is being quoted as under:
"11. In the circumstances of this case, ..........................
Otherwise, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms
or rewrite the contract between the parties."
59. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005)
9 SCC 174, the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking aid of the
judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428
- 26 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
has been pleased to observe that "after the completion of the
contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms
except by mutual consent".
60. The petitioner since has agreed to make payment of
the Dead Rent and Surface Rent as one of the conditions of
the lease deed, and admittedly it is not paid then certainly
the writ petitioner will be considered to be defaulter of the
terms and conditions of the lease deed and the aforesaid
aspect of the matter is an admission due to the fact of
depositing the said amount by the petitioner; meaning
thereby the cause of defaulting in making payment of Dead
Rent and Surface Rent is known to the writ petitioner and
by virtue of that it is not available for the writ petitioner to
take the ground of violation of principles of natural justice
reason being that in such circumstances the writ petitioner
will not be in a position to defend himself in such admitted
fact of not making payment of the Dead Rent and Surface
Rent and in that view of the matter if the consideration will
be given of violation of principles of natural justice then the
same will amount to empty formality and futile exercise.
61. It also needs to refer herein that the writ petitioner
has come to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C)
No. 6174 of 2004 challenging the order dated
- 27 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
26.06.2003(Annexure-4) by which the mining lease was
cancelled and certificate proceeding was also challenged.
62. We have gone through the order dated
26.06.2003(Annexure-4) and found that the lease deed was
cancelled. For ready reference the content of the said order
although is in Hindi, is quoted as under:
ftyk [kuu dk;kZy;] fxfjMhg
i=kad 594@,e0] fnukad 26-6-03
lsok es]a
Jh fot; d`".k lgk;]
firk Lo0 egkjkt lgk;]
eks0 'kkL=h uxj
iks0 $ Fkkuk&fxfjMhg
ftyk&fxfjMhgA
fo"k;%& fxfjMhg ftyk vUrxZr ekStk pp?kjk ds IykWV ua0 547@P] jdck
1-50 ,dM+ {ks= ij /kkfjr iRFkj [kuu iV~Vk ds lEcU/k
esAa
mi;qZDr fo'k; ds lEcU/k esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr
/kkfjr iRFkj [kuu iV~Vk ds ckcr fuxZr cS/kkfud uksfVl la0 196@,e0]
fnukad 11-02-02] 632@,e0 fnukad 31-07-02 ,oa 1006@,e0 fnukad 19-12-
02 ds }kjk fn;k x;k Fkk ftldk vuqikyu vkids }kjk ugha fd;k x;k
QyLo:i mDr /kkfjr iV~Vk 'ks'k vof/k ds fy, mik;qDr] fxfjMhg ds vkns'k
fnukad&24-5-03 ds }kjk ifj lekIr dj nh xbZ gSA
vr% vkidks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr iV~Vk {ks= dk
{ks=kf/kdkj bl dk;kZy; ds [kku fujh{kd dks fnukad 12-06-03 dks okil dj
nsa vU;Fkk ,d rjQk {ks=kf/kdkj ljdkj ds i{k esa ys fy;k tk,xkA
bls vko';d le>sAa
ftyk [kuu
inkf/kdkjh
fxfjMhgA
- 28 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
63. It is evident from order dated 30.11.2004 passed in
WPC No. 6174 of 2004 that this Court has declined to
interfere with the order of cancellation of mining lease,
however, liberty was reserved with the writ petitioner to
approach the certificate officer and take all the points that
may be available to him.
64. For ready reference, order dated 30.11.2004 passed in
WP(C) No. 6174 of 2004 is being referred.
Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order which
was passed as far back as on 26.6.2003 cancelling the
mining lease and is further challenging the certificate
proceeding.
In my view, the petitioner may appear before the
Certificate Court before whom Certificate Case is pending
and take all the points that may be available to him. This
Court, at this stage, is not inclined to interfere with the
order of cancellation of mining lease.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Needless to say that Certificate Officer shall consider
the objection and determine the liability in accordance with
law."
65. The order dated 30.11.2004 has also not been
challenged before the higher forum which also clarifies that
the petitioner has not challenged his liability and as per the
decision taken by the certificate officer which has been
contested by the writ petitioner by filing objection under
Section 9 of the Act, 1914 in pursuance to the liberty
granted by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2004 passed in
WP(C) No. 6174 of 2004, the said liability has been paid.
- 29 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
66. Thus, this Court, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove, is of the view that the argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner by way of ground of non-serving of
the notice is not worth to be acceptable, accordingly
rejected.
67. Accordingly, issue no. I and II are answered against
the writ petitioner.
68. So far Issue No. III i.e., whether even accepting the
case of the writ petitioner is there then can any relief be
extended in favour of the writ petitioner in view of
enactment of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004 on creation of the State of Jharkhand superseding the
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 wherein
statutory restrictions has been made that there cannot be
any extension or renewal of the lease after 31.03.2022, is
concerned, this Court in order to consider the aforesaid
issue needs to refer herein that the lease deed was executed
in the year 1997 i.e., at the time of erstwhile State of Bihar
while the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule,1972 was in
vogue. Lease deed was cancelled in the year 2003 at that
time also the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules was
prevalent although the State was bifurcated in two State
i.e., the successor State of Bihar and the successor State of
Jharkhand.
- 30 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
69. The successor State of Jharkhand has come out with
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004, in
exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR
Act, 1957. The moment the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rule, 2004 has been enacted, the Bihar Minor
Mineral Concession Rule, 1972 has lost its force as per
provision of Section 85 of the Bihar Re-Organization Act,
2000. The Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004
has been amended several times particularly in year 2020,
in order to adhere to the judicial pronouncements
enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others, [(2014) 6
SCC 590] and Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principle
Secretary & Others (2014) 9 SCC 516 by inserting the
provision as contained under Section 9. For ready reference
the relevant provisions of rule 9 of Rules 2004 are being
quoted as under:
"9(1) (क)-
-
A
- 31 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
9(ङ) 05.00 0
Letter of Intent ( ) ,
k ,
9( ) 05.00 0
oSls ]s uohdj.k varxZr Fks @
ugha jgus ds dkj.k ,
@ 31 , 2022
,
@jn~n@ ,
,
,
@ @
9( ) 05.00 0
@ @
3[31 , 2022 ,
@
9(12) -9 (1) ( ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)( ), 9 (1) ( ) 9 (10)
@ 5.00
"
70. It is evident from the provision as referred hereinabove
that there cannot be any renewal or extension of mining
lease after 31.03.2022. However, if the validity of mining
lease is there after 31.03.2022 up-to that date the validity of
the mining lease will be operative but thereafter it has to be
settled through auction.
- 32 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
71. It is relevant to refer herein that as on date whatever
decision is to be taken by the State it is in pursuance to the
decision of JMMC Rules, 2004 amended time to time even
though lease was granted under the Bihar Minor Mineral
Concession Rules,1972 but the moment the Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004 has been enacted
which is in supersession to the Bihar Minor Mineral
Concession Rules,1972 due to the force of Section 85 of the
Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 and otherwise also, the
moment Government of Jharkhand has come out with the
new rule the same will be in supersession to the earlier rule,
therefore, whatever decision is to be taken by the State of
Jharkhand, that is to be strictly in accordance with the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, wherein
there is no provision of extension of period of lease after
31.03.2022 in a case where the validity of the lease itself
has expired prior to 31.03.2022.
72. Herein, in the facts of the present case, even accepting
the case of the writ petitioner to be correct then lease was in
force only for a period of ten years i.e., from 1997 to 2007.
73. Even if the petitioner will be granted any relief, then
also there cannot be any extension of the period of lease in
view of the statutory restriction in the statute.
- 33 -
2025:JHHC:37413-DB
74. So far as the Dead Rent and Surface Rent is
concerned, which has already been paid, had the petitioner
any grievance in relation to the amount of Dead Rent and
Surface Rent then it would have been contested but that is
not the case herein since the amount has already been paid.
75. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in view of
restriction imposed by the statute under Rule 9 of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004, no relief
can be granted contrary to the statutory restriction.
76. Accordingly, issue III is answered against the writ
petitioner.
77. This Court, after having answered all the issues, is of
the view that the instant writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
78. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
12th December, 2025
Alankar/
A.F.R
Uploaded on 12.12.2025
- 34 -
