Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jharkhand Minor Minerals Works vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4008 of 2024
------
M/s Jharkhand Minor Minerals Works, (A Proprietorship Firm), having its
office at House No.107, Harindanga Bazar, Main Road, Pakur, P.O. and P.S.
Pakur, District Pakur, PIN 816107 (Jharkhand), through its Proprietor Md.
Tipu Ansari, aged about 32 years, son of Haji Md. Tanweer Alam Ansari,
resident of House No.107, Harindanga Bazar, Main Road, Pakur, P.O. and
P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, PIN 816107 (Jharkhand).
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries,
Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House),
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834002.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate,
Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand, PIN 816107.
3. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate,
Pakur, P.O. and P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand, PIN 816107.
..... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
------
th
04/Dated: 07 November, 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/order/direction, including writ of
certiorari for quashing/setting aside the notice issued vide Memo
No.876/M dated 10.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.03 [Annexure-
6] wherein from 19.09.2019 March, 2022 the Respondent No.03 has
directed the Petitioner to make payment of the amount of differential
Royalty, D.M.F.T., Environment Cess and Income Tax on the sole
ground that Stone Boulder excavated from the mines of the petitioner
has been transported to a Stone Crusher for production of stone chips,
as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
Writ of Declaration, declaring that action of the Respondent-State of
Jharkhand in levying and collecting Royalty @ 708/- per hundred
cubic feet i.e. @ Rs.250/- per cubic meter on removal of stone
boulders from the mining lease premises of the Petitioner, on the sole
ground that stone boulders excavated from the mines of the Petitioner
have been transported to a Stone Crusher for production of Stone
Chips, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including
Writ of Mandamus, restraining the Respondent-State of Jharkhand
from collecting higher rate of Royalty @ 708/- per hundred cubic feet
i.e. @ Rs.250/- per cubic meter on removal and transportation of
stone boulders through the mechanism of 'Jharkhand Integrated
Mines and Minerals Management System Portal' (hereinafter referred
to as 'JIMMS Portal' for short), especially because the Petitioner is
removing only 'stone boulders' from its mines and not 'stone chips'
and the incidence of levy of royalty is at the stage of removal of
mineral from the mines.
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for
quashing/setting aside Notification dated 16th September, 2019
[Annexure-3] by which Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 has been amended to the extent a higher rate
of royalty @ 708/- per hundred cubic feet i.e. @ Rs.250/- per cubic
meter has been prescribed for 'Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used
for making chips'.
(v) In alternative to prayer (iv) above, Petitioner prays for issuance of an
appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration,
declaring that the rate of royalty fixed @ 250/- cubic meter in respect
of mineral for making stone chips cannot be applied to such mining
lessees who are not having Processing Unit/Crusher Plant within their
leasehold area.
(vi) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
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 petitioner that the dispute pertains to Mining
executed by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent-State
of Jharkhand for a period commencing from 07.11.2017 to
06.11.2027 pertaining to Mouza Hathigarh, Jamabandi No. 27, 41,
44, 56 & 57, Plot No. 1043/P, 1044, 1045, 1046/P, 1054, 1055,
1056, 1057 & 1058, Thana Littipara, having an area of 5.86 Acre
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
situated in the District of Pakur.
(ii) The Petitioner is not having any crusher unit inside its mining lease
area and the Petitioner's proprietor is having a stone crusher
outside the mining lease area in the name and style of Sultan Stone
Products which is located outside the mining lease area. The
Petitioner was duly carrying out its mining activity strictly in
accordance with provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 including all its amendments and no
complaint whatsoever was raised against the Petitioner in respect
of its mining operation and was discharging his liability towards
royalty and other statutory liabilities arising out of the mining lease
in question and no dispute in respect thereof was ever raised
against the Petitioner.
(iii) The Respondent-State of Jharkhand, in exercise of the power
conferred under Section 23-C(1) and Section 23-C(2) of the 'Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957', framed
'The Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
'Jharkhand Minerals Rules, 2017' for short). Under the said Rules,
State of Jharkhand provided, inter alia, that no transportation or
otherwise removal of any mineral from any place would be
undertaken without obtaining a Transport Challan duly generated
through 'Jharkhand Integrated Mines and Minerals Management
System Portal (hereinafter referred to as 'JIMMS Portal' for short),
which has been recognized under Rule 2(k) of the Jharkhand
Minerals Rules, 2017.
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
(iv) In respect of the mining lease of the Petitioner having an area of
5.86 Acres, Petitioner was separately registered under the JIMMS
Portal.
(v) From perusal of Section 9(2) read with Section 15(3) of the
MMDR Act, it would be evident that the said Act contains enabling
provisions towards payment of royalty and the said Sections
clearly provide, inter alia, that payment of royalty would be made
by a holder of mining lease in respect of 'mineral removed or
consumed in the leased area' to be specified in the Schedule. From
perusal of the provisions contained under Section 9(2) and Section
15(3) of the MMDR Act itself, it is evident that payment of royalty
is upon removal of mineral and/or consumption of mineral from
the leased area. Thus, incidence of levy of royalty is at the stage of
removal of mineral from the leased area and/or consumption of
mineral in the leased area.
(vi) It is the case of the petitioner that the Petitioner was a holder of
mining lease of boulder i.e. stone boulder and it is the said Boulder
itself which is removed from the mining area of the Petitioner and
the Petitioner was liable to pay royalty on boulder at the time of its
removal from the mining lease area.
(vii) In exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR
Act, the State of Jharkhand promulgated 'Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'JMMC Rules'
for short) containing therein rules and regulations of minor
minerals including Boulder. Rule 29 of the JMMC Rules provide
for levy of royalty and Rule 29(1)(b) of the said Rules provide,
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
inter alia, that royalty would be payable as per Schedule-2 of the
said Rules.
(viii) The original Schedule-2 of the JMMC Rules determined the rate of
royalty to be paid and, under the said Schedule-2, royalty was
payable at the same rate in respect of Boulder, Gravel, Shingle
and/or Boulder, Gravel, Shingle, which is used for making chips.
(ix) The State of Jharkhand, vide Notification dated 16th September,
2019, amended Schedule-2 of the JMMC Rules and enhanced the
rate of royalty fixed under the Schedule. However, while
enhancing the rate of royalty vide Notification dated 16 th
September, 2019, in Schedule-2 a completely different rate of
royalty was prescribed in respect of 'Boulder, Gravel, Shingle
which is used for making chips', and, royalty was prescribed @ Rs.
708/- per hundred cubic feet and/or Rs. 250/- per cubic meter.
However, in respect of 'Boulder, Gravel, Shingle, royalty was
prescribed @ Rs. 374/- per hundred cubic feet i.e. Rs. 132/- per
cubic meter.
(x) It is the case of the petitioner that the Notification dated 16th
September, 2019, wherein Schedule-2 of the JMMC Rules has
been amended to the extent it provides for enhanced rate of royalty
in respect of 'Boulder, Gravel, Shingle used for making chips', is
wholly contrary to the provisions of the MMDR Act read with
JMCC Rules.
(xi) Section 9(2) read with Section 15(3) of the MMDR Act only
enables the appropriate government to prescribe rates fixing the
rate of royalty on mineral removed or consumed from the leased
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
area and there is no enabling provision authorizing fixation of rate
of royalty on mineral upon the nature of its use. Schedule-2 of the
JMMC Rules, to the extent it provides for fixing of different rates
of royalty based upon the use of mineral, is completely contrary
and beyond the scope of the delegated power of the delegatee i.e.
the State Government and is, thus, beyond the scope of Section
15(3) of the MMDR Act. Even the Notification dated 16 th
September, 2019 is contrary to Rule 29(1)(b) of the JMMC Rules
itself, which only provide for fixation of rate of royalty vide
Schedule-2 and does not enable the State Government, being a
delegatee, to fix the rate of royalty on the basis of nature of use of
minerals.
(xii) Further, Rule 29(1)(b) is to be read with Rule 29(4) of the JMMC
Rules, which enables the State Government to levy royalty at the
time of removal of minerals from the mining lease area. Both the
said provisions do not envisage levy of royalty on the nature of
uses of minerals removed from the leased area. The incidence of
royalty arises on the event of extraction and removal and not on
any other extraneous factor beyond the mining lease area.
(xiii) It is further the case of the petitioner that the prescription of two
different rates on the same minerals merely on the basis of their
uses, is an arbitrary classification being made by the Respondent-
State of Jharkhand and has no reasonable nexus to be achieved.
The said classification is not based on any intelligible differentia
and reasonable classification and is, thus, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
(xiv) It is further the case of the petitioner that the rate of Rs. 250/- per
cubic meter, i.e. Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet as prescribed in
respect of Boulder using for making chips cannot be applied in the
case of the Petitioner, especially because Petitioner was not having
any Crusher Unit situated within the leasehold area and no
processing of minerals was being undertaken by the Petitioner in
his mining lease area. Despite the amendment in the aforesaid
Schedule-2 vide Notification dated 16th September, 2019, the said
Schedule was not being implemented in the State of Jharkhand, as
the said Schedule itself was completely vague.
(xv) Utter confusion was prevailing as to whether royalty @ Rs. 374/-
per hundred cubic feet is to be realized from such mining lessees
who do not have Crusher Plant within their mining lease area and
whether royalty @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet is to be
realized from the mining lessees who have Crusher Plant within the
mining lease area, and, under the said background, an Office Order
contained in Memo No. 888 dated 26.06.2020 was issued by
District Mining Officer, Palamau, at Medini Nagar.
(xvi) From perusal of the aforesaid Office Order, it would be evident
that, in fact, as per understanding of the Respondent-authorities,
royalty @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet was to be charged only
from such mining lessees who have established their Crusher Unit
within their leased area; and royalty @ Rs. 374/- per hundred cubic
feet was being charged from mining lessees who do not have
Crusher Unit within their mining lease area. In fact, the said
methodology has been followed by Respondent-authorities till date
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
until an alleged clarification under Rule 44 of the JMMC Rules
was issued by the Deputy Director, Mines, Palamau Circle, Medini
Nagar, vide Letter No. 32/DDM/dated 24.03.2022. A perusal of the
said letter would reveal that Respondent-State of Jharkhand
uniformly interpreted Schedule-2 to mean that royalty @ Rs. 708/-
per hundred cubic feet would be only leviable if a mining lessee
has Crusher Unit situated within its mining lease area.
(xvii) Merely because Petitioner was having a mining lease, Respondents
have demanded royalty from the Petitioner @ Rs. 708/- per
hundred cubic feet and without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner, vide notice bearing Memo No. 876/M dated 10.05.2022,
the Respondent No. 03 has issued demand notice by demanding
inter alia differential royalty, D.M.F.T., Environmental Cess and
Income Tax from the petitioner @ 708/- per hundred cubic feet i.e.
@ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter on removal of stone boulders from the
mining lease premises of the Petitioner for the period 19.09.2019 to
March, 2022. In the said demand notice, it has been stated that if
differential amount of royalty is not paid by the petitioner within
15 days, proceeding for recovery would be initiated against the
petitioner.
(xviii) The Director, Mines, vide its letter contained in Memo No. 910/M
dated 26.04.2022 also issued a letter, wherein although it has been
stated that two rates of royalty have to be collected as per the
Schedule-2 of the JMMC Rules, but no clarification has been given
as to in which manner royalty is to be collected.
(xix) From perusal of Rule 64-B of the JMMC Rules, it would be
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
evident that where processing of the minerals takes place within
the leased area, royalty is charged on the processed mineral, but
where minerals are removed from the leased area and are processed
outside the leased area, royalty is charged on unprocessed
minerals. The said Rules framed by the Central Government
further fortifies the fact that incidence of payment of royalty is the
removal of mineral from the leasehold area and, thus, at best,
royalty can be charged on boulder used for making chips if the
process of stone boulders takes place within the leased area and not
outside the leased area.
(xx) It is also the case of the petitioner that although the demand was
raised in the year 2022 itself, but the said demand was never
communicated to the Petitioner despite the fact that the Petitioner
is operating mines and is regularly discharging Royalty with the
Respondent- authorities. It is stated that only on or about 25 th May,
2024 while the Petitioner's representative for some official work
had visited the District Mining Office, Pakur, the aforesaid demand
was served upon the Petitioner's representative and it was verbally
informed to the Petitioner that either the Petitioner make payment
of the aforesaid demand or its Mining Challan shall be suspended.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid facts of the
case, has submitted that the instant writ petitioner is fit to be allowed by
quashing and setting aside the impugned notice issued vide Memo No.
876/M dated 10.05.2022.
4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to learned Advocate General appearing
for the respondent-State has submitted that the similar issue has already
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022 on 23rd
September, 2024.
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 this Court in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022
on 23.09.2024.
8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ
petition, as also, the judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C)
No.2360 of 2022, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter
of the present writ petition, has already been decided by this Court in the
aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are being referred as under:-
"... 99. In the instant case, boulders are first mineral that is extracted
directly by mining and stone chips are the other minerals that is
produced after extraction through the process of crushing and is used
separately by the company to earn profit.
103. Thus, it is evident that in para-2 of the Schedule 2 of the JMMC
Rules, 2004 read with all the amendments till date, it is mentioned that
royalty for Mineral Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making
chips will be chargeable at the rate of Rs. 250 per cubic meter with
effect from 19.09.2019.
104. As per Rule 29(1) (kh), royalty is chargeable as per rate notified
from time to time in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004.
105. As per Rule 29(1) (kh) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, the Lessee shall
have to pay fixed rent and royalty on quarterly basis and the account of
this rent and royalty shall be adjusted on actual basis in such a way that
the higher of fixed rent or royalty shall be recovered in any year.
106. Now adverting to the facts of the case, it is evident that the State of
Jharkhand vide notification dated 16th September, 2019 amended the
Schedule 2 of the said rules, which is impugned in these batch of writ
petitions.
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
107. It is contended by the petitioners that on the basis of amendment in
Schedule 2 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, demand notice has been raised
whereby the petitioners have been directed to make payment of the
amount of differential Royalty, D.M.F.T., Environmental Cases and
Income Tax on the sole ground that Stone Boulder excavated from the
mines of the petitioner has been transported to a Stone Crusher for
production of stone chips, as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond
the scope of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
108. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and the relevant provision of
law, the first and foremost question which is to be decided is as to:
"I. Whether the State Government is competent enough to levy
royalty at different rate of stone-boulders used for making chips?
and;
II. Whether the State Government, by amending Entry 2 of
Schedule 2 of the JMMC Rules vide notification dated 16th
September, 2019 overreaches the restrictions imposed upon by the
Parliament?"
110. Further, the State having exclusive power under Article 246
schedule 7 entry list 23 as well as under section 15 MMDR Act, to
formulate the Rules and accordingly State have formulated JMMC
Rules to regulate the uses and taxes of Minerals, as such there is no iota
of doubt about the competency of the State in making such Rules.
111. It needs to refer herein that in the case of State of Haryana and
Anr. vs. Chanan Mal [(1977) 1 SCC 340) the constitutional validity of
the State enactment framed under the provisions of the MMRD Act,
1957 was under challenge before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that subject to the
overall supervision of the Central Government, the State Government
has a sphere of its own power and can take legally specified action
under the Central Act and rules made thereunder. Thus, the whole field
of control and regulation under the provisions of the Central Act of
1957 cannot be said to be reserved for the Central Government.
114. As discussed above, it is clearly given in the Rule under Rule 29
(1) (kh) that royalty is chargeable as per rate notified from time to time
in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
115. In the instant case, since, the State Government has power to make
rules to enhance the rate of royalty under Section 15(1) read with 15(3)
in respect of a minor mineral, the State Government can amend/revise
the royalty rate in three years.
116. It appears that the last amendment in royalty rate was made in the
year 2015 (29.04.2015). Thereafter, after a gap of four years, the
schedule rate has been revised vide Notification No.-1509/M, dated
16.09.2019, published in the State Gazette on 19.09.2019, thus the
aforesaid notification is within the ambit of the rule as stipulated in the
Rules which has been framed by the State as per the power conferred by
section 15(3) of the Act 1957 and also as per the mandate of Article 246
Entry 23.
117. As per Rule 29(1) (kh), royalty is chargeable as per rate notified
from time to time in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004. In para-2 of the Schedule 2 of the JMMC
Rules, 2004 read with all the amendments till date, it is mentioned that
royalty for Mineral Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making
chips will be chargeable at the rate of Rs. 250 per cubic meter with
effect from 19.09.2019.
118. The issues raised by the petitioners regarding differential royalty
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
can be understand only after understanding the actual meaning of
minerals. As discussed above the word "mineral" is not defined in the
Act; but has been judiciously interpreted by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of V.P. Pithupitchai v. Special Secretary to the Govt. of T.N.,
(supra) wherein it has been observed that the word mineral in popular
sense means those inorganic constituents of the earth's crust which are
commonly obtained by mining or other process for bringing them to the
surface for profit. Therefore, a mineral as judicially defined would
mean an inorganic substance found either on or in the earth which may
be garnered and exploited for profit.
119. In the instant case, the petitioners by way of beneficiation
converted the boulder into chips which has more commercial value than
the boulder. Further, the State government by virtue of amendment in
schedule 2 of JMMC Rule has only categorized two group i.e. royalty
for Mineral Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making chips
will be chargeable at the rate of Rs. 250 per cubic meter with effect
from 19.09.2019 whereas the royalty for Mineral Boulder which is at
the rate of Rs. 132 per cubic meter.
120. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is apparently clear that the
minerals can be classified in two types first are those that are directly
extracted, obtained from the earth and other are those minerals that are
produced after the extraction through the process of crushing or
refinery and these types of minerals are used separately by the company
to earn profit in large scale.
121. In the instant case, boulders are first mineral that is extracted
directly by mining; and the stone chips are the other minerals that are
produced after extraction through the process of crushing and it is used
separately by the company to earn profit and that‟s why State charges
separate royalty on boulder and separate on stone chips. Therefore it is
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, reason being that as per
amendment in schedule 2 of JMMC rule the State has charged the
differential rate of royalty, which is well under the purview of the
statutory provisions, as discussed above.
122. The collection of higher rates of royalty i.e. Rs 250/- per cubic
meter on removal and transportation of stone boulders through the
mechanism of JIMMS Portal especially because the petitioners are
removing only stone boulders from their mines and not stone chips and
the incidence of levy of royalty is at the stage of removal of mineral
from the mines is fair and reasonable as per Section 9(1) and (2) of the
Mines and Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957.
123. The moot question arises here that the Stone Boulder excavated
from the mines of the petitioner which has been beneficiated by the
petitioners in to stone chips either inside the lease area or outside lease
area upon which different rate of royalty is charged by the State is just,
fair and reasonable and come within a „Reasonable Classification‟
and thus is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and the Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
130. Further, as discussed above the State having exclusive power
under Article 246 Schedule 7 Entry list 23 as well as under section
15(3) MMDR Act, to formulate the Rules and accordingly, State has
formulated JMMC Rules to regulate the uses and taxes of Minerals
wherein under Rule 29 (1) (kh) royalty is chargeable as per rate notified
from time to time in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules.
131. Thus, the State is entitled to charge differential royalty on the stone
boulder used for making chips whether it is being used outside or inside
of the leased area at the rate prescribed under paragraph -2 of the
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
Second Schedule of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004.
132. Therefore, under Rule 29(1)(kh) royalty is chargeable as per rate
notified from time to time in Schedule-2 Of the Jharkhand Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and neither do the rules appear to
violate the equality clause as provided under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
133. Thus, the prescription of rate as per schedule 2 by the State is a
reasonable classification and is just, fair and reasonable and is a
Reasonable Classification within the class and thus in consonance with
the ideals and principles of Article 14 of the Constitution and the
Jharkhand Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
134. At this juncture this Court would like to refer Rule 41 of the JMMC
Rules, 2004 which provides for payment of royalty as provided in the
lease deed, therefore, otherwise also, the petitioners are bound by the
terms and conditions of the lease deed and are also bound as per
Schedule 2 of the Rule, as amended from time to time.
140. The core issue which has been agitated on behalf of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the notification, which has been issued
in the year 2019 i.e., notification dated 16th September, 2019 is without
jurisdiction reason being that the State is having no authority to come
out with such notification in absence of any power delegated by the
Central Government or under the authority of the Central Government.
142. It is not in dispute and it cannot be disputed that the Jharkhand
Mine and Minerals concession Rule (JMMC Rule) has been enacted by
the State of the Jharkhand under the authority of Section 15(3) of the
MMDR Act, 1957. Under JMMC Rules, 2004, a provision has been
made under Rule 29 conferring power upon the State to issue
notification regarding the rates of royalty of one or other minor
mineral(s).
143. The moment the State has come out with a Rule under the authority
as conferred under Section 15(3) of the MMDR Act, based upon which
the statutory provision has been enacted by virtue of Rule 29 under
which the notification dated 16th September, 2019 has been issued,
therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioners to say that the
State Government is having no authority to revise the rates of minor
minerals.
144. If the contention of the petitioner will be accepted then for what
purpose the power has been conferred upon the State and further the
question would be that what is the meaning of keeping the major
minerals under list I under Entry 54 and minor mineral under List II
under Entry 23.
147. It needs to refer herein that the validity of Rule 29 of 2004 has not
been questioned herein. Therefore, once the validity of Rule 29, by
which it is provided that royalty will be as per the mandate schedule-2,
is accepted then how can it be argued that impugned notification is not
as per Rule.
148. Accordingly, all the issues framed by this Court are answered.
161. In case of environmental damage caused by corporations, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has adopted the principles of
"polluter pays", "precautionary principle", and "sustainable
development". The principle of "Polluters Pays" demands that the
financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution
lies with the undertakings which caused such pollution in the first place.
The "Precautionary Principle" mandates action to avert risks that
[2025:JHHC:33264-DB]
2024:JHHC:26054-DB
could cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment and
human health.
162. Furthermore, the Companies Act, 2013 introduced a significant
provision, Section 135, as part of its Corporate Social responsibility.
This includes initiatives related to environmental sustainability and
climate change mitigation. Corporations are now required to allocate a
portion of their profits towards activities that benefits society and the
environment, driving investments in projects aimed at addressing
climate change.
163. Thus, Legal and moral responsibilities should be taken together as
a bundle of obligations for businesses to effectively discharge their
functions with accountability inevitably linked to moral responsibility.
164. This Court in the purport of the aforesaid underlying object and
adverting to the factual aspect involved in the present matter, it is
admitted that the boulders, which has been taken out by the mines
operators admittedly is lesser in cost to that of chips. The petitioners‟
case is that they extract boulder for which the rate of royalty is less i.e.,
Rs. 132 per cubic meter but outside the lease-hold area the same is
being converted into chips and hence, the royalty which has been
earmarked for Chips i.e., @ Rs. 250 per cubic meter is not liable to be
paid by one or the other petitioners.
165. But this Court is of the view that whether it is inside the leasehold
area or outside the leasehold area, when the very concept is pay to the
society due to extraction of the mining operation to compensate the
nature then it is the obligation on the part of the petitioners to pay the
royalty on the basis of ultimate use of mines product, here it is from
boulder to chips."
9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has
found that the issue involved herein is identical to that of the case, which
has been decided in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022 on 23.09.2024.
10.Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the
judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022.
11.In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
07th November, 2025
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
Uploaded on:11.11.2025
