Jharkhand High Court
M/S Durga Mining Project Through Its ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3821 of 2020
1. M/s Durga Mining Project through its partner Kishor Mandal, Son of
Rajendra Prasad Mandal, resident of village Koro Road, P.O. & P.S.
Karmatanr, District Jamtara.
2. Satyanaryan Mandal, son of late Mano Mandal, one of the partner of
M/s Durga Mining Project, resident of village Fofnaid, P.O. Aamdiha,
P.S. Karmatanr, District Jamtara. .................. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Industry, Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. and
P.S Doranda, Town and District Ranchi.
2. Commissioner of Mines, Department of Industries, Mines & Geology,
having its office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S Doranda, Town and
District Ranchi.
3. Director Mines, Directorate of Mines, Department of Industries, Mines
& Geology, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S Doranda,
Town and District Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O. &, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara.
5. Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle, having its
office at Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
6. District Mining Officer, Jamtara, P.O. Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District
Jamtara.
7. Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara, P.O. Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District
Jamtara. ................ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III
C.A.V on 08.09.2025 Pronounced on 13/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
"a. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the letter no.570/M, dated 23.09.2020
(Annexure-8) issued by District Mining Officer, Jamtara
whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Jamtara
has imposed a penalty of Rs.5,8,02,755 to be paid by the
petitioner under 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules for committing illegal mining;
b. An appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the letter
no. 597/M, dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara has directed the petitioners to
pay Rs.58,02,755/- within one week failing which a certificate
proceeding will be initiated against the petitioners;
c. An appropriate Writ, order, direction for quashing dated the
letter no.602/M, 01.10.2020 (Annexure 10) which was received
through E-Mail by the petitioner at 05:51 PM sent by the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara a further demand notice has
been issued to the petitioner's firm by exercising power under
section 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
Rules wherein the petitioner's firm was directed to pay twice
the amount which comes to Rs.1,16,05,510/- for committing
illegal mining and further in the email by which the letter has
been sent mentioned that earlier letter No. 571/M, dated
23.09.2020 and letter no.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 is being
modified to the said extent.
d. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the
notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-
11) issued by the Certificate Officer in C.C. No.08/2020-21,
Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle
whereby a certificate proceeding has been initiated against the
petitioner's firm for recovery of amount of Rs.1,16,05,510."
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition
needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) The petitioners are the partners of M/s Shiv Durga Mining
Project and they were granted mining lease for the period
07.10.2015 to 16.10.2025, i.e., for the period of 10 years
for mining of stone mine at Teladih in Khata No.27, Plot
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
No.848/B at village Teladih, P.O. & P.S. Karmtanr, District
Jamtara.
(ii) Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioner's firm has
obtained Environmental Clearance from Impact State
Assessment Jharkhand vide letter Level Authority, no.EC /
SEIAA / 2015-2016/811 /2015/ 1315, dated 17.08.2015.
(iii) The petitioners have also got a clearance certificate from
the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter
dated 17.02.2016 and the said letter has been issued under
the signature of Member Secretary, Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board.
(iv) Thereafter mining lease was granted by the State of
Jharkhand to the petitioner's firm.
(v) The Circle Officer, Karmatanr vide letter dated 19.12.2015
addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara by which it
has been stated that the measurement of the land has been
done by Anchal Amin and the map of the land is annexed
for the kind perusal along with the same letter. From
perusal of the map it will be evident that in Plot No.848
there are three Dag Nos. i.e. plot no.848/A, 848/B & 848/C
and in Dag No. 848/A whose measurement is one hectare
that has already been mined earlier and 848/C is a road and
the Dag no.848/B which has been shown in red colour in
map is the area for which the mining lease has been granted
to the petitioner's firm.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
(vi) Further, the mining plan has also been approved by the
Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka issued
by the Deputy Director, Mines, Dumka vide memo
no.395/DDM, dated 23.05.2015 in the said letter which has
been addressed to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara by
the Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas Circle,
Dumka who by exercising powers conferred under Rules
34D of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
(Amendment) Rules, 2014 has approved the mining plan
including the progressive mine closure plan and scheme of
mining in respect of mining plan submitted under Rule
34C(i) and 34E(i) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The approval was
made subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo
dated 23.05.2015.
(vii) Prior to the grant of mining lease, the Forest Clearance has
also been taken which will be evident from the letter written
by Forest Range Officer, Jamtara addressed to Assistant
Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.107, dated
27.01.2015.
(viii) It is stated that the office of the Circle Officer, Karmatanr
vide letter no.256/A, dated 16.10.2014 addressed to District
Mining Officer, Jamtara has specifically stated that the land
in which the mining lease was granted has not been settled
to any Raiyat after conducting an enquiry by the Circle
Office, Karmatanr.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
(ix) Further, after complying all the formalities the petitioner's
firm was doing mining in plot no.848/B measuring an area
of 6.30 acre without any complaint from any corner.
(x) It is the case of the writ petitioners that the District Mining
Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.384/M, dated 24.06.2020 has
issued a show cause notice to the petitioner's firm stating
therein that why the mining operations is stopped in the
mining area for which the mining lease has been granted to
the petitioner's firm which is not in consonance with the
conditions of the mining lease.
(xi) Thereafter, the petitioners had given their reply to the said
show cause notice stating therein that earlier when the
mining operations were going on too much production has
been done which was not sold due to which there had huge
stock of the production.
(xii) Thereafter a letter no.569/M, dated 23.09.2020 issued by
the District Mining Officer, Jamtara whereby and
whereunder the District Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein it
had been stated that earlier twice inspection has been
carried out in the mining area in which the mining lease was
granted to the petitioner's firm and it was found that the
mining operations were stopped and for which earlier a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's firm on
24.06.2020 and a reply has also been given by the
petitioner's firm which was not been found satisfactory and
again on 21.09.2020, an inspection was carried out in the
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
mining area for which the mining lease was granted
wherein several irregularities were found by the District
Mining Officer, Jamtara and accordingly a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner's firm stating therein that
why not mining lease granted to the petitioner's firm be not
be cancelled and reply to the same may be reached to the
office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara within 30
days after receipt of the show cause letter.
(xiii) On the same day, another letter was issued by the District
Mining Officer, Jamatara being letter no. 570/M, dated
23.09.2020 wherein it has been stated by the District
Mining Officer, Jamtara that on 15.09.2020, the mining
area for which the mining lease was granted to the
petitioner's firm at Village Teliadih in plot no.848
measuring an area of 8.30 acre, a joint inspection conducted
by the SDO, Jamtara and after conducting the said
inspection it was informed by the SDO, Jamtara that illegal
mining has been done in the area 848/M which is not the
mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the
basis of the said information again an inspection was
carried on 21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and
Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners
and it was found that mining has been done in plot
no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the
petitioner's firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft.
approximately extra mining operations have been done by
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
the petitioner's firm and it was further been stated in the
said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office
of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated
that earlier mining lease holder i.e. M/s Bhagwati
Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of
stone mining and as such the extra mining i.e.
approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft of stone mining
has illegally been done by the petitioner's firm and
accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule,
2004 the demand notice was issued to the petitioner's firm
and the petitioner's firm were directed to deposit
Rs.58,02,755/- as a penalty within one week from the date
of receipt of the letter.
(xiv) Further, again the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide
letter No.597/M dated 01.10.2020 which was received
through email by the petitioner's firm wherein it has been
stated that earlier a letter dated 23.09.2020 has already been
issued by which the petitioner's firm was directed to deposit
Rs.58,02,755/- for the illegal mining committed outside the
mining area for which the mining lease was granted to the
petitioner's firm and accordingly, again it was directed to
the petitioner's to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- within one week
from the date of issuance of the letter and if the said is not
paid a certificate proceeding shall be initiated against the
petitioner's firm.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
(xv) Thereafter, again a letter was issued by the District Mining
Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.602/M, dated 01.10.2020 i.e.
on the same day which was received by the petitioner's firm
through Email on the same day i.e. 05:51 PM and in the
said letter it has been mentioned that that illegal mining has
been done in the area 848/M which is not the mining lease
hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the basis of the said
information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020,
by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin,
Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners and it was
found that mining has been done in plot no.848/A which is
not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and it
was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining
operations have been done by the petitioner's firm and it is
mentioned in the said letter that on the basis of the record
found in the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara
it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder i.e. M/s
Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450
Sqft. of stone mining and as such the extra mining i.e.
approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft of stone mining
has illegally been done by the petitioner's firm and
accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule,
2004, twice the amount has to be recovered from the
Mining Lease Holder who has done the illegal mining and
accordingly a demand notice was issued to the petitioner's
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
firm to deposit Rs.1,16,05,510 (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs
Five Thousand Five hundred and Ten). In the said letter it
has further been stated that the earlier letters issued by the
District Mining Officer being letter No.571/M, dated
23.09.2020 and letter No.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 stands
modified to this extent.
(xvi) Further, a notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020
was issued by the Certificate Officer -cum- Deputy
Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle whereby
a certificate proceeding in C.C. No. 08/2020-21 was
Initiated against the petitioner's firm for recovery of amount
of Rs.1,16,05,510/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five
Thousand Five Hundred and Ten only).
(xvii) Consequent to the aforesaid, the petitioner's firm has given
a representation on 03.10.2020 to the District Mining
Officer, Jamtara wherein it has specifically been stated that
no illegal mining has been done by the petitioner's firm and
further it has been stated when the mining lease was granted
to the petitioner's firm on 12.10.2015 and at that time the
Circle Officer, Karmatanr prepared a map for the mining
lease hold area and in the map it has been specifically
mentioned that earlier already plot no. 848/A has already
been mined and no illegally mining has been done by the
petitioner's firm and from the date of grant of mining lease
they have carried mining operations in their own mining
area and no complain has been received from any corner
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
and further the entire allegations of illegal mining is based
on surmises and conjectures.
(xviii) Further, the petitioners again preferred a representation on
29.10.2020 to Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Parganas
Area, Dumka wherein it has been stated that the entire
allegation of illegal mining is totally false and concocted. It
has further been stated that at the time of grant of mining
lease, the circle officer, Karmatanr along with the help of
circle amin has conducted measurement of the plot no.848
and prepared a map to that extent and in the map itself it
has mentioned that in the plot no.848/A at village Teliadih,
that plot no.848/A has already mined by the erstwhile
mining lease holder, i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises and
further when the inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, then
notice was issued to the petitioner's firm rather they were
called upon to sign on a blank paper and while signing on
the blank paper they were assured that only for the purpose
of measurement this signature is being taken and at the time
of making signature there was no map rather the signature
was taken in blank paper and later on that signature was
used in the map and in the inspection report. It has further
been stated in the said letter that the measurement has been
done behind their back and further no illegal mining has
been done in plot no.848/A to the tune of 603330 Sqft. in
plot no.848/A and the entire allegation is based on surmises
and conjectures and an imaginary figure has been
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
mentioned on the basis of miscalculation without even
issuing notice to the erstwhile mining lease holder to
authenticate the said fact.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the
impugned demands contained in letter no. 570/M dated 23.09.2020
(Annexure-8), letter no. 597/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-9), letter no.
602/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-10) and letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020
(Annexure-11) issued by the respondent-authority by filing the present
writ petition.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners:
4. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
(i) The ground has been taken that no power has been conferred
under the executive authority to impose penalty by way of
punishment in exercise of power conferred under section 54(6)
of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017.
(ii) It has been contended that in view of Section 21(5) of
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the
said power is vested to the State Government and there is no such
delegation of power to the District Mining Officer as required
under Section 26(2) of the said Act.
(iii) It has further been contended that subsequent to issuance
of such impugned letters, a certificate case being C.C. No. 08 of
2020-21 has also been instituted against the petitioners in which
notice dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure- 11) has been issued to them
under Section 7 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
Act, 1914. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided to
the petitioners before issuance of the said impugned letters.
(iv) It has been contended that even prior to the measurement
made by the Circle Officer, SDO and Anchal Amin, no notice
was issued to the petitioners' firm rather the petitioners were
forced to sign on certain blank papers stating that the
measurement is being done and later on it was found that those
signs were used by the respondents in preparing the map.
(v) It has been contended that the said power is only vested
upon the competent Court of jurisdiction, therefore, the
impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioners
by the executive authority is without jurisdiction.
(vi) The contention has been raised that this Court has not
taken into consideration that the grievance is already lying before
the Tribunal then the direction ought to have been passed by this
Court for early conclusion of the said proceeding instead of
passing an order of stay of further proceedings due to which the
petitioner is also not getting the amount of its part.
5. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted
that the impugned order therefore, needs interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondents:
6. Per contra, Mr. Om Prakash Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the
following grounds:
(i) It has been contended that the impugned demands are issued under
the provisions of Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
2017 which are in accordance with law and, as such, the present writ
petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts.
(ii) It has been contended that a joint inspection of the lease are of the
petitioners' firm has been made by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara in presence of the petitioners,
the Circle Officer, Karmatar and Circle Inspector Jamtara including
some other officials and in course of inspections various and several
irregularities were found including a serious matter that the
petitioners were working and extracting stone out of his lease old
area which is situated in plot no.848/A which is a vacant land.
(iii) It has been contended that the said joint inspection report was sent
to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara vide letter dated 15.09.2020
by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara which reveals that the
petitioners' firm was used to extract stone in the above said
adjoining vacant land, i.e., plot no.848/A in place of his own
leasehold area being plot no.848/B.
(iv) It has been contended that in pursuance to the said joint inspection
report, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara directed the District
Mining Officer, Jamtara to take necessary legal action and to submit
a report.
(v) It has been contended that thereafter the District Mining Officer,
Jamtara vide letter dated 18.09.2020 sent a notice to the petitioners
to be remain present for sectional measurement on 21.09.2020.
(vi) It has been contended that thereafter sectional measurement was
done in presence of the petitioners and it was found that the
petitioners were engaging in extracting stone in plot no.848/B which
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
is a vacant land and, as such, the petitioners were involved in illegal
mining in contravention of JMMC Rule 2004 amended in 2017.
(vii) It has been contended that the petitioners were found engaging in
illegal extraction of mining work and, as such, they were liable to
punishment by way of penalty as provided in Rule 54(6) of the
JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017.
(viii) It has been contended that the petitioners have a remedy to prefer an
appeal under Rule 65(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 against the
demand but they have approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition which is not maintainable.
(ix) It has further been contended that due to non-payment of the
impugned demands, a certificate case being Certificate Case No.08
of 2020-21 was initiated against the petitioners but the petitioners
instead of filing objection in the said proceeding directly
approached this Court for quashing the impugned demands which is
not a legal process and it is fit to be dismissed at the admission stage.
7. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned orders, thus, need no interference and the
present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone
through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit
along with the relevant documents annexed therewith.
9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioners are the partners
of M/s Shiv Durga Mining Project and they were granted mining lease for
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
the period of 10 years for mining of stone mine at Teladih in Khata No.27,
plot No.848/B at village Teladih, P.O. & P.S. Karmtanr, District Jamtara.
10. Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioners' firm has
fulfilled all formalities and statutory requirement, thereafter mine was
leased out to the petitioners. Further, the Circle Officer, Karmatanr vide
letter dated 19.12.2015 addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara
wherein map was annexed wherefrom it is evident that in plot no.848 there
are three Dag Nos. i.e. plot no.848/A, 848/B & 848/C and in Dag No.
848/A whose measurement is one hectare that has already been mined
earlier and 848/C is a road and the Dag no.848/B is the area for which the
mining lease has been granted to the petitioners' firm.
11. Further, the mining plan has also been approved by the Deputy
Director, Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka issued by the Deputy Director,
Mines, Dumka vide memo no.395/DDM, dated 23.05.2015 in the said
letter which has been addressed to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara by
the Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas Circle, Dumka who by
exercising powers conferred under Rules 34D of the Jharkhand Minor
Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014 has approved the mining
plan including the progressive mine closure plan and scheme of mining in
respect of mining plan submitted under Rule 34C(i) and 34E(i) of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The
approval was made subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo
dated 23.05.2015.
12. Further, after complying all the formalities the petitioners' firm
was doing mining in plot no.848/B measuring an area of 6.30 acre without
any complaint from any corner.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
13. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the District Mining
Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.384/M, dated 24.06.2020 has issued a show
cause notice to the petitioners' firm stating therein that why the mining
operations is stopped in the mining area for which the mining lease has
been granted to the petitioners' firm which is not in consonance with the
conditions of the mining lease.
14. Thereafter, the petitioners had given their reply to the said show
cause notice but the same was not being found satisfactory by the authority
concerned, thereafter a letter no.569/M, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein it had been stated that on
21.09.2020, an inspection was carried out in the mining area for which the
mining lease was granted wherein several irregularities were found by the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara and, accordingly, a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioners' firm stating therein that why not mining lease
granted to the petitioners' firm be not be cancelled.
15. It is evident that on the same day, another letter was issued by
the District Mining Officer, Jamatara being letter no. 570/M, dated
23.09.2020 wherein it has been stated by the District Mining Officer,
Jamtara that on 15.09.2020, the mining area for which the mining lease
was granted to the petitioners' firm at Village Teliadih in plot no.848
measuring an area of 8.30 acre, a joint inspection conducted by the S.D.O,
Jamtara and after conducting the said inspection it was informed by the
S.D.O, Jamtara that illegal mining has been done in the area 848/M which
is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the basis of
the said information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, by
Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been done in plot
no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioners' firm
and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining operations
have been done by the petitioner's firm. It has further been stated in the
said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the District
Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder,
i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of
stone mining and, as such, the extra mining, i.e., approximately to the tune
of 6,03,330 Sqft. of stone mining has illegally been done by the petitioners'
firm and, accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the Jharkhand
Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004 the demand notice
was issued to the petitioners' firm and the petitioners' firm were directed
to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- as a penalty within one week from the date of
receipt of the letter.
16. Thereafter, again a letter was issued by the District Mining
Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.602/M, dated 01.10.2020 and in the said
letter it has been mentioned that that illegal mining has been done in the
area 848/M which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioners' firm
and on the basis of the said information again an inspection was carried on
21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr
in the presence of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been
done in plot no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the
petitioners' firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra
mining operations have been done by the petitioners' firm. It is mentioned
in the said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
holder, i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450
Sqft. of stone mining and as such the extra mining, i.e., approximately to
the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft. of stone mining has illegally been done by the
petitioners' firm and accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004, twice the
amount has to be recovered from the Mining Lease Holder who has done
the illegal mining and, accordingly, a demand notice was issued to the
petitioners' firm to deposit Rs.1,16,05,510 (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five
Thousand Five hundred and Ten). In the said letter, it has further been
stated that the earlier letters issued by the District Mining Officer being
letter No.571/M, dated 23.09.2020 and letter No.597/M, dated 01.10.2020
stands modified to this extent.
17. Further, a notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 was
issued by the Certificate Officer -cum- Deputy Director Mines, Santhal
Parganas, Dumka Circle whereby a certificate proceeding being C.C. No.
08/2020-21 was initiated against the petitioners' firm for recovery of
amount of Rs.1,16,05,510/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Five
Hundred and Ten only).
18. Consequent to the aforesaid, the petitioners' firm has given a
representation on 03.10.2020 to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, but
on the said representation nothing was happened. Further, the petitioners
again preferred a representation on 29.10.2020 to Deputy Director, Mines,
Santhal Parganas Area, Dumka wherein it has been stated that the entire
allegation of illegal mining is totally false and concocted. Since as per the
pleading of the writ petition the grievances of the petitioners has not been
addressed, as such the present writ petition has been preferred.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically
contended that no power has been conferred under the executive authority
to impose penalty by way of punishment in exercise of power conferred
under section 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 and the
said power is only vested upon the competent Court of jurisdiction,
therefore, the impugned order raising the demand against the writ
petitioners by the executive authority is without jurisdiction. Further, it
has been contended that in view of Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the said power is vested to the
State Government and there is no such delegation of power to the District
Mining Officer as required under Section 26(2) of the said Act.
20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that
the impugned demands are issued under the provisions of Rule 54(6) of
the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 which are in accordance with
law and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as
well as on facts.
21. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf
of both the parties is required to consider that whether the action of the
State in inflicting punishment of imposing penalty in terms of the
provision of Rule 54 (6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 can be said to be just
and proper in absence of conferment of power.
22. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that this Court
has already adjudicated the said issue in the writ petition being W.P. (C)
No. 2859 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2025
wherein it has been categorically held that by virtue of Section 21(5) of
the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with
any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land.
It has further been observed that if the ratio of the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India
& Ors [(2017) 9 SCC 499] will be taken into consideration along with the
provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act,
1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State
Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated
for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest
that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to
raise the demand, in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule
2004, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
is being quoted as under:
"81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section
21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been
conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its
price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned
for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein, the State
Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the
executive authority. Accordingly, power has been conferred
upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated 6th May,
2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance
of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the reason
notification has been issued conferring power upon the
representative(s) of the State Government and therefore, the
State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State
Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of
the Rules, 2004. 82. So far as the power which has been
exercised by the District Mining Officer under the provision of
Rule 54(8) now it is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has
been taken that under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer
has no jurisdiction, but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra)
will be taken into consideration along with the provision of
Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957,
it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State
Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has
been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State
Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in
exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004."
23. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that this Court
has categorically held in the said case that by virtue of Section 21(5) of the
MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the
power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with
any rent, royalty, or tax. It has further been observed by this Court that
power has been conferred upon the District Mining Officer by virtue of the
notification dated 6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior
to the issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 and that is the reason
notification has been issued conferring power upon the representative(s)
of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government, i.e.,
representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand
under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004.
24. Accordingly, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition of which the relevant paragraphs are being quoted
hereinabove, it is evident that District Mining Officer of the concerned
district has power/jurisdiction to impose the penalty under rule 54(6) of
the Rule 2004 as amended time to time.
25. The issues aforesaid which has been framed by this Court are
answered accordingly.
26. Another contention which has been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that even prior to the measurement made by the Circle
Officer, S.D.O. and Anchal Amin, no notice was issued to the petitioners'
firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers
stating that the measurement is being done.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
27. It has further been contended that subsequent to issuance of such
impugned letters, a certificate case being C.C. No. 08 of 2020-21 has also
been instituted against the petitioners in which notice dated 19.10.2020
(Annexure- 11) has been issued to them under Section 7 of Bihar & Orissa
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 but, no opportunity of hearing was
provided to the petitioners before issuance of the said impugned letters.
28. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that a joint inspection of the lease of the petitioners' firm has been made
by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara in
presence of the petitioners, the Circle Officer, Karmatar and Circle
Inspector, Jamtara including some other officials and in course of
inspections several irregularities were found and it was revealed that the
petitioners were working and extracting stone out of his lease old area
which is situated in plot no.848/A which is a vacant land. Further, the
District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter dated 18.09.2020 sent a notice
to the petitioners to be remain present for sectional measurement on
21.09.2020, and thereafter sectional measurement was done in presence of
the petitioners and it was found that the petitioners were engaging in
extracting stone in plot which is a vacant land and, as such, the petitioners
were involved in illegal mining in contravention of JMMC Rules, 2004
amended in 2017.
29. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties, it is required to consider herein that whether in the
instant case before imposing penalty on the writ petitioners or passing the
impugned orders, the principle of the natural justice has been followed by
the authority concerned or not.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
30. Before entering in to merit of the aforesaid issue, it requires to
refer herein that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an
opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural
justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who
is going to be adversely affected, reference in this regard may be made to
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mrs.
Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and Anr.", reported in (1978) 1 SCC
248, wherein, the proposition has been laid down that even if there is no
statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow
the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be
given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected.
31. Such decision has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court while
dealing with Section 10(3) of the Indian Passport Act, wherein, the validity
of the said provision was challenged on the ground that there is no
provision to provide an opportunity of hearing before impounding the
passport. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the constitutional
validity of the said provision, but has laid down the proposition that even
if there is no provision or stipulation made in the statutory provision, then
also, it will be the bounded duty of the concerned authority to provide
opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse decision, for ready
reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment needs to be referred,
which reads as under:-
"We may commence the discussion of this question with a few
general observations to emphasise the increasing importance
of natural justice in the field of administrative law. Natural
justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law
with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has
grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of
administrative action. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of
this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
Club: "We can, I think, take pride in what has been done in
recent periods and particularly in the field of administrative
law by invoking and by applying these principles which we
broadly classify under the designation of natural justice. Many
testing problems as to their application yet re-remain to be
solved. But I affirm that the area of administrative action is but
one area in which the principles are to be deployed. Nor are
they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown.
Does natural justice qualify to be described as a 'majestic'
conception? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague
phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of
assurance? I believe that it is very much more. If it can be
summarised as being fair-play in action -- who could wish that
it would ever be out of action? It denotes that the law is not
only to be guided by reason and by logic but that its purpose
will not be fulfilled; it lacks more exalted inspiration. And then
again, in his speech in the House of Lords in Wiseman v.
Borneman, the learned Law Lord said in words of inspired
felicity: "... that the conception of natural justice should at all
stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not
merely an acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy
of the law. We often speak of the rules of natural justice. But
there is nothing rigid or mechanical about them. What they
comprehend has been analysed and described in many
authorities. But any analysis must bring into relief rather their
spirit and their inspiration than any precision of definition or
precision as to application. We do not search for prescriptions
which will lay down exactly what must, in various divergent
situations, be done. The principles and procedures are to be
applied which, in any particular situation or set of
circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it
has been said, is only 'fair play in action'. Nor do we wait for
directions from Parliament. The common law has abundant
riches : there may we find what Byles, J., called 'the justice of
the common law' ".
Thus, the soul of natural justice is "fair-play in action" and
that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout
the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an
administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of
fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that
"fair-play in action" demands that before any prejudicial or
adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an
opportunity to be heard. The rule was stated by Lord Denning,
MR in these terms in Schmidt v. Secretary of State or Home
Affairs -- "where a public officer has power to deprive a
person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is
that it has not to be done without his being given an opportunity
of being heard and of making representations on his own
behalf". The same rule also prevails in other Commonwealth
countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has even
gained access to the United Nations (vide American Journal of
International Law, Vol. 67, p. 479). Magarry, J., describes
natural justice "as a distillate of due process of law" (vide
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
Fontaine v. Chastarton16). It is the quintessence of the process
of justice inspired and guided by "fair-play in action". If we
look at the speeches of the various Law Lords in Wiseman case
it will be seen that each one of them asked the question
"whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal acted unfairly so that it could be said that their
procedure did not match with what justice demanded", or, was
the procedure adopted by the Tribunal "in all the
circumstances unfair?" The test adopted by every Law Lord
was whether the procedure followed was fair in all the
circumstances and "fair-play in action" required that an
opportunity should be given to the taxpayer "to see and reply
to the counter-statement of the Commissioners" before
reaching the conclusion that "there is a prima facie case
against him". The inquiry must, therefore, always be: does
fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard
should be given to the person affected?"
32. We have proceeded to examine the factual aspect in the light of
the aforesaid proposition of law as also to assess the fact that if the show
cause has not been given before issue the demand notice, can it be said to
be violation of principle of natural justice, as one of the grounds has been
taken in filing the writ petition.
33. From paragraphs 24 and 25 of the writ petition, it appears that it
has been pleaded therein that prior to the issuance of demand notices no
show cause was issued to the petitioner's firm and even no chance of
hearing was given to the petitioners' firm before issuing the impugned
letter dated 23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602, dated
01.10.2020.
34. It has further been pleaded that even prior to the measurement
made by the Circle Officer, S.D.O. and Anchal Amin no notice was issued
to the petitioners' firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain
blank papers stating that the measurement is being done. For ready
reference para-24 and 25 is being quoted as under:
"24. That the petitioners state and submit that prior to the
issuance of demand notices no show cause were issued to the
petitioner's firm and even no chance of hearing was given to
the petitioner's firm before issuing the impugned letter dated
23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602, dated
01.10.2020.
25. That the petitioners state and submit that even prior to the
measurement made by the Circle Officer, SDO and Anchal
Amin no notice was issued to the petitioner's firm rather the
petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers stating
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
that the measurement is being done and later on It was found
that those signs were used by the respondents in preparing the
map."
35. In the instant case counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondent concerned wherein from perusal of paragraph 30 it is evident
that reply of paragraphs of 24 and 25 of the writ petition has been
mentioned at para-30 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated
that directly demand letter was issued to the writ petitioners, for ready
reference para 30 the counter affidavit is being quoted herein which reads
as under:
"30. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioners
in paragraph- 24 to 26, in the instant writ petition under reply,
it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are totally false
and not correct and as such hereby denied as the petitioners
were present at the time of sectional measurement and were
knowing the facts that they are indulged in illegal mining and
hence they were issued directly demand letter as per Rule. It is
not a fact that the petitioners were forced to sign after sectional
measurement and inspection to put their signature. It is also to
be mention here that the petitioners were issued the prior
information for sectional measurement."
36. In the aforesaid paragraph it has been stated that the petitioners
were present at the time of sectional measurement and were knowing the
facts that they are indulged in illegal mining and, hence, they were issued
directly demand letter as per Rule.
37. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that before issuing the
impugned notices dated 23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602,
dated 01.10.2020, no show cause has been issued. It needs to refer herein
that as per the import of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of "Maneka Gandhi" (supra) that even if there is no provision
or stipulation made in the statutory provision, then also, it will be the
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
bounded duty of the concerned authority to provide opportunity of hearing
before taking any adverse decision.
38. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be disputed that
the party against whom the liability is being casted or putting civil
consequence, then, the issuance of show-cause notice is required to be
there. It is also for the purpose to show the issue of consideration by the
authority concerned, since, the consideration always mean the active
application of mind and the authority is to apply its mind by taking view
either way, either in favour of the litigant concerned who has put his
defence or in favour of the authority casting liability putting civil
consequence upon the party concerned. Prima facie it appears herein that
the active consideration having not available in the said demand notices
and, as such, the impugned demands have been issued without seeking any
explanation from the writ petitioners. Thus, from the aforesaid it appears
that element of natural justice has not been followed herein.
39. Further, it needs to refer herein that the learned State counsel has
submitted that the Government has come out with notification being
Notification No. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of
Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and
21(5) of the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities,
Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy
Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant
Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction.
40. It has further been submitted that if the petitioners intend to
approach the appropriate authority as per the conferment of power vide
Notification No. 212 dated 6th May, 2025, the petitioners may do so.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
41. In response, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has
submitted that so far it relates to passing of decision afresh in the changed
circumstances of conferment of power vide Notification No. 212 dated 6th
May, 2025 is concerned, he has agreed to the same and has submitted that
the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration to be done by the
competent authority in view of conferment of power to the authorities
concerned.
42. This Court, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and
further taking into consideration the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, has found that the impugned orders/demand
notices need to be interfered with for the purpose of deciding the issue
afresh.
43. Accordingly, the impugned orders/demand notices are hereby
quashed and set aside.
44. Hence, the matter is hereby remitted before the authorities
concerned, i.e., District Mining Officer Jamtara, for deciding the issue
afresh.
45. The District Mining Officer, Jamtara, therefore, is directed to
issue show-cause notice reflecting therein the irregularities said to be
committed by the petitioners along with the relevant documents, if any.
46. The said show-cause notices are to be given to the writ
petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order.
47. The petitioners are to respond to the said show-cause notice
within a further period of three weeks.
2025:JHHC:31611-DB
48. The concerned District Mining Officer shall pass appropriate
order, in accordance with law within a further period of three weeks.
49. However, it is made clear that if no response in pursuance to the
aforesaid show-cause notice will be furnished by the writ petitioners, then
the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, after completion of the above period
of three weeks, shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
50. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ
petition stand disposed of.
51. Consequently, the interim order dated 15.02.2021 stands
vacated.
52. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated: 13./10/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 14/10/2025
