M/S Aaraanya Mines Private Limited vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4220 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Aaraanya Mines Private Limited vs Union Of India on 24 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P. (C) (Filing) No. 6516 of 2025
            M/s Aaraanya Mines Private Limited, Ramgarh, represented through its
            Authorized Signatory-Pramath Nath Mahto
                                                                   ... ... ... ... Petitioner
                                           Versus
         1. Union of India, through Nominated Authority [Constituted under Section 6
            of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015], Ministry of Coal,
            Government of India, New Delhi
         2. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF), through its
            Secretary, New Delhi
         3. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi
                                                                     ... ... ... Respondents
                                              -----

CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate For the Res. Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C. For the Res. No. 3: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.

-----

02/24.06.2025

1. Issue notice to the respondents.

2. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent nos. 1 & 2.

3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G., accepts notice on behalf of

the respondent no. 3.

4. In a similar matter, this Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 in W.P.(C)

No. 3443 of 2023 had taken a prima-facie view that there is non-

compliance by the respondents of Clause 6.2.1.(d) of the Coal Mine

Development and Production Agreement and by placing reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, (2006) 12 SCC 33 and in Carona Ltd.

Vs. Parvathy Swaminathan & Son, (2007) 8 SCC 559 , it has

recorded that there is a prima facie jurisdictional error. Apart from issuing notice, this Court had also given directions to the respondents

not to take any coercive action with respect to the bank guarantee

given by the petitioner without the permission of the Court and had

directed the petitioner to keep the bank guarantee valid till further

orders.

5. Therefore, for the same reasons, in the instant writ petition also the

respondents are directed not to take any coercive action with respect to

the bank guarantee given by the petitioner without the permission of

the Court and the petitioner is directed to keep the bank guarantee

alive until further orders.

6. List on 07.07.2025 along with W.P.(C) Nos. 3443 of 2023, 2336 of

2024, 2584 of 2024 and 2936 of 2024.

7. Counter affidavits be filed in the matter by the next date.

8. Defects be rectified in the meantime.

                                                            (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J)



Satish/Vikas/-                                                 (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)