Jharkhand High Court
K.K. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1894 of 2023
------
K.K. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Kumud Ranjan
Pathak, aged about 48 years, having its Office at Holding No.
27, New Kalimati Road, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. Director, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi.
4. Deputy Director, Department of Mines, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
5. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur,
having its office at Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District -
East Singhbhum.
6. District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur,
having its office at Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. - Sakchi, District -
East Singhbhum. ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V
------
C.A.V. on 08.09.2025 Pronounced on 13/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking for the following reliefs: -
"(a) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to grant further two years time to
the petitioner to carry out mining of sand from
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No. 419/Part, measuring
an area of 4 Acres, since the petitioner could not
carry out mining operations for the lease period
due to latches on the part of the respondent.
(b) In the alternative, the respondents be directed
to pass an order on the representation of the
petitioner as also the recommendation made by
the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur
(Respondent No. 6) to the Director of Mines
dated 2.2.2021 (Annexure-11) for extension of
period of lease for lifting of sand in favour of the
petitioner."
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in
the writ petition, requires to be enumerated, which read
as under: -
(i) The petitioner company being a company of
contractor carrying out construction of roads, bridges,
residential houses etc. and hence, there is perpetual
requirement of sand on the part of the petitioner.
(ii) It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement
was published by the District Mining Officer, East
Singhbhum at Jamshedpur inviting applications for
settlement of Balu Ghats in the District of East
Singhbhum.
(iii) Since the petitioner was in regular need of sand, it
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
made a bid for settlement of Balu Ghat situated at
Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No.419/Part, measuring an area
of 4 Acres in the District of East Singhbhum.
(iv) It is the case of the petitioner that having declared
as the highest bidder, the respondents issued letter no.
1807 dated 06.06.2015 informing the petitioner in the
public auction it has been declared as the highest bidder
after having made a bid of Rs. 35 Lacs for three financial
years. It has been decided to allot the settlement of Balu
Ghat in Plot No. 419/Part under Mouza - Kanyaluka of
Bhalki Panchayat in Ghorabandha Anchal in the District
of East Singhbhum subject to several conditions.
(v) The petitioner complied with all the conditions
mentioned therein and made an application for approval
of mining plan before the District Mining Officer. The
District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum vide its memo
No. 9581 dated 31.12.2015 approved the mining plan of
the petitioner.
(vi) After approval of the mining plan by the
Respondent No.6, the petitioner made an application
before the District Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DEIAA')
for environmental clearance to carry out mining of sand
over the leasehold property.
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
(vii) The DEIAA granted environmental clearance to the
project vide letter bearing memo no. 20 dated
22.10.2017.
(viii) It is the case of the petitioner that about two years
time was consumed in obtaining environmental
clearance from the competent authority.
(ix) After obtaining the environmental clearance, a lease
deed was executed between the petitioner and the State
on 30.01.2018.
(x) After execution of the lease deed the petitioner
made an application on 12.5.2018 to the District Mining
Officer, East Singhbhum for making the site available to
the petitioner. The said application was followed by
similar letters dated 11.10.2018 and 03.05.2019.
(xi) During pendency of the application of the petitioner
for handing over the site, the petitioner obtained Consent
to Establish (CTE) from the Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board as required u/s 25/26 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and u/s
21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. Such certificate was obtained on 01.06.2018.
(xii) Having obtained the Consent to Establish (CTE),
the petitioner obtained Consent to Operate (CTO) from
the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board u/s 25/26
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 on 24.06.2018.
(xiii) It is the further case of the petitioner that though
the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities
for carrying out mining operations, however, it could not
start its operation, due to non-handing over the site by
the respondents.
(xiv) Finally, the site was handed over to the petitioner
on 08.05.2019.
(xv) Though the petitioner has been granted settlement
of Balu Ghat on 06.06.2015, the site was finally handed
over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019, though the lease
deed was executed on 30.01.2018.
(xvi) The contention of the petitioner is that the period of
three years for which the lease deed has been executed
in favour of the petitioner commenced from 30.01.2018,
however, on account of site not having been handed over
to the petitioner, he could not carry out mining operation
of sand for the period between 30.01.2018 to
08.05.2019. The delay of this period is totally
attributable to the State authorities.
(xvii) It is the further case of the petitioner that from
perusal of the environmental clearance issued by the
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
DEIAA it shall appear that the petitioner was permitted
to extract 42,06,056 cft of sand in three seasons,
however, on account of loss of two seasons the petitioner
could lift only 12,06,853 cft of sand. Thus, the unlifted
quantity of sand is 29,99,203 cft. The petitioner could
not lift this quantity of sand on account of paucity of
time, which was caused mainly on account of delay in
grant of necessary permission and uploading of
documents on official website.
(xviii) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
has paid royalty on the basis of 42,06,056 cft which was
valued at Rs. 35 Lacs, however, against this he could lift
only about 12,06,853 cft of sand causing huge financial
losses to the petitioner.
(xix) The lease period was to expire on 29.1.2021 and
before expiry of the said period the petitioner made an
application to the District Mining Officer, East
Singhbhum on 14.8.2020 informing the respondents
that delay has been caused on account of the
respondents to complete the formalities necessary for
mining of sand and hence, a request was made to extend
the period of lease.
(xx) After expiry of the lease, the petitioner has made
repeated reminders to the respondents vide letters dated
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
09.01.2021, 20.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 requesting the
Respondent No.6 to extend the period of lease so that the
petitioner could complete his contractual obligation.
(xxi) On the basis of the repeated representations of the
petitioner, District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur
(Respondent No. 6) vide his letter bearing no. 168 dated
2.2.2021 forwarded the application of the petitioner to
the Director of Mines, recommending for extending of
time in favour of the petitioner.
(xxii) Though the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur
has recommended for extension of time, but the
petitioner is yet to receive any response from the Director
of Mines.
(xxiii) Therefore, the present writ petition has been
filed for a direction upon the respondents to grant
further two years' time to the petitioner to carry out
mining of sand.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken the
following grounds in assailing the impugned order: -
(i) It has been submitted that the petitioner has been
granted settlement of Balu Ghat on 06.06.2015 and
though the lease deed was executed on 30.01.2018
but the site was finally handed over to the petitioner
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
on 08.05.2019.
(ii) The contention has been raised that the period of
three years for which the lease deed has been
executed in favour of the petitioner commenced from
30.01.2018, however, on account of site not having
been handed over to the petitioner, he could not
carry out mining operation of sand for the period
between 30.01.2018 to 08.05.2019. The delay of this
period is totally attributable to the State authorities.
(iii) It has been submitted that the petitioner was
permitted to extract 42,06,056 cft of sand in three
seasons, however, on account of loss of two seasons
the petitioner could lift only 12,06,853 cft of sand.
The petitioner could not lift 29,99,203 cft of sand on
account of paucity of time, which was caused
mainly on account of delay in grant of necessary
permission and uploading of documents on official
website.
(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has paid royalty on the basis of
42,06,056 cft which was valued at Rs. 35 Lacs,
however, against this he could lift only about
12,06,853 cft of sand causing huge financial losses
to the petitioner.
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
(v) Learned counsel has further submitted that the
lease period was to expire on 29.01.2021 and before
expiry of the said period the petitioner made an
application to the District Mining Officer, East
Singhbhum on 14.08.2020 stating that delay has
been caused on account of the respondents to
complete the formalities necessary for mining of
sand and, therefore, the period of lease may be
extended.
(vi) It has been submitted that even after expiry of the
lease, the petitioner has made repeated reminders to
the respondents requesting to extend the period of
lease so that the petitioner could complete his
contractual obligation. Thereafter, the District
Mining Officer, Jamshedpur vide his letter bearing
no. 168 dated 02.02.2021 forwarded the application
of the petitioner to the Director of Mines,
recommending for extending of time in favour of the
petitioner. But till date no order has been passed on
the representation of the petitioner.
(vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that direction be
issued to the concerned respondent to grant further
two years' time to the petitioner to carry out mining
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
of sand or in the alternative, to pass an order on the
representation of the petitioner.
Submissions made on behalf of the Respondent
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has taken
the following grounds :-
(i) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that it is incorrect to say that the delay in handing
over the site to the petitioner was cause due to the
laches committed on the part of the respondents,
rather, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner
had another stone ming site on lease and the
petitioner had not cleared the outstanding dues to
the State and this is one of the reasons the land for
ming of sand could not be handed over to the
petitioner. There was no fault on the part of the
respondents, rather, the delay was on the part of
the petitioner. The site was handed over to the
petitioner only after the petitioner cleared all his
dues.
(ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that after
handing over the site to the petitioner on
08.05.2019, the petitioner had to upload all the
relevant documents and thereafter apply online on
the official website for obtaining the online permit
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
for sand mining and there was delay on the part of
the petitioner in applying for the permit. As the
petitioner had delayed in applying online on the
official website for the permit, hence, permit was not
issued to the petitioner.
(iii) Learned counsel has submitted that the
respondents have not made the petitioner suffer on
account of any laches on their part, rather, the
petitioner had delayed in uploading the relevant
documents on the official website for obtaining
online permit.
(iv) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that
the writ petition is devoid of any merit and fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as
also the counter affidavit filed by the State.
6. Before adverting to the merit of the case it needs to refer
herein that the power which is to be exercised by the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of
issuance of prerogative writs and one of the same is Writ of
Mandamus which is the subject matter in the present writ
petition.
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
7. The purpose of a Writ of Mandamus is to ensure to compel
action and prevent arbitrary or unlawful inaction by those in
authority. Mandamus serves to promote the rule of law,
protect individual rights, and ensure that the government
functions in accordance with the law. Its ability to compel the
performance of a specific duty or act. It is a remedy used to
enforce a clear legal right, ensuring that public officials, or
government agencies fulfil their obligations in accordance
with the law.
8. The Writ of Mandamus is closely associated with the power of
judicial review. It allows the higher courts to examine the
actions or inactions of public officials or authorities to ensure
they are in compliance with the law. The court reviews the
legality and validity of the actions and may issue the writ to
correct any deficiencies or omissions.
9. But, it is equally settled that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be
issued merely because a person is praying for, one must
establish the right first and then, he must seek for the prayer
to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the
authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for
Mandamus. The said position is well settled in the series of
decisions.
10. In the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9
SCC 309 at paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows:
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
"10 Under the Constitution a mandamus can
be issued by the court when the applicant
establishes that he has a legal right to the
performance of legal duty by the party against
whom the mandamus is sought and the said
right was subsisting on the date of the
petition...."
11. Further, in the decision reported in Union of India v. S.B.
Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of
mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must
establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of
mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal
duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.
12. In the decision reported in Oriental Bank of
Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that Mandamus is, subject to the
exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate
remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial
duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and
others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty. The
relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
"11. The principles on which a writ of
mandamus can be issued have been stated
as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal
Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
"Note 187.--Mandamus, at common law, is a
highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of
the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the
name of the sovereignty, directed to any
natural person, corporation or inferior court
within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do
some particular thing therein specified, and
which appertains to their office or duty.
Generally speaking, it may be said that
mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from
the proper court, commanding the official or
board to which it is addressed to perform
some specific legal duty to which the party
applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to
have performed.
***
Note 192.--Mandamus is, subject to the
exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the
appropriate remedy to enforce a plain,
positive, specific and ministerial duty
presently existing and imposed by law upon
officers and others who refuse or neglect to
perform such duty, when there is no other
adequate and specific legal remedy and
without which there would be a failure of
justice. The chief function of the writ is to
compel the performance of public duties
prescribed by statute, and to keep
subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals
exercising public functions within their
jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however,
that the duty be imposed by statute;
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of
a common law duty.
***
Note 196.--Mandamus is not a writ of right.
Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound
judicial discretion of the court, subject always
to the well-settled principles which have been
established by the courts. An action in
mandamus is not governed by the principles
of ordinary litigation where the matters
alleged on one side and not denied on the
other are taken as true, and judgment
pronounced thereon as of course. While
mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its
issuance is largely controlled by equitable
principles. Before granting the writ the court
may, and should, look to the larger public
interest which may be concerned--an interest
which private litigants are apt to overlook
when striving for private ends. The court
should act in view of all the existing facts,
and with due regard to the consequences
which will result. It is in every case a
discretion dependent upon all the surrounding
facts and circumstances.
Note 206.-- ... The correct rule is that
mandamus will not lie where the duty is
clearly discretionary and the party upon
whom the duty rests has exercised his
12. These very principles have been adopted
in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic
Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149]
after referring to the earlier decisions
in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M.
Shah [AIR 1966 SC 334], Rai Shivendra
Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College [AIR 1962
SC 1210] and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of
Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964]
this Court observed as follows in para 15 of
the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case [(1977)
4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149], SCC pp. 152-
53)
"15. ... There is abundant authority in favour
of the proposition that a writ of mandamus
can be granted only in a case where there is a
statutory duty imposed upon the officer
concerned and there is a failure on the part of
that officer to discharge the statutory
obligation. The chief function of a writ is to
compel performance of public duties
prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate
tribunals and officers exercising public
functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.
It follows, therefore, that in order that
mandamus may issue to compel the
authorities to do something, it must be shown
that there is a statute which imposes a legal
duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right
under the statute to enforce its performance.
... In the instant case, it has not been shown
by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or
rule having the force of law which casts a
duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is
an obligation flowing from a contract which,
as already indicated, is also not binding and
enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the
opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to
apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution and the High
Court was not competent to issue the same."
13. The Mandamus which is being sought for by the High Court
in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is to be issued if there is in-action
on the part of the State and if such action is statutorily
directed to be performed by the State authority. Reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State
of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 wherein at paragraph-
100 and 101, it has been observed which reads as under:
"100. The High Courts exercising their
jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, not only have the
power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the
nature of mandamus, but are dutybound to
exercise such power, where the Government
or a public authority has failed to exercise or
has wrongly exercised discretion conferred
upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy
decision of the Government or has exercised
such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant
consideration.
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
101. In all such cases, the High Court must
issue a writ of mandamus and give directions
to compel performance in an appropriate and
lawful manner of the discretion conferred
upon the Government or a public authority."
14. It is, thus, evident that the mandamus is to be issued under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any in-
action on the part of the State. Further a writ of mandamus
can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty
imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on
the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of
public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate
tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the
limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order
that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do
something, it must be shown that there is a statute which
imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right
under the statute to enforce its performance.
15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law
we are now adverting to the factual aspect of the case.
admittedly from prayer portion of the instant writ
petition it is evident that prayer has been sought for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to grant further two years time to the
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
petitioner to carry out mining of sand from Mouza
Kanyaluka, Plot No. 419/Part, since the petitioner could
not carry out mining operations for the lease period due
to latches on the part of the respondent.
16. The contention has been raised herein on behalf of the
petitioner that the lease deed has been executed in
favour of the petitioner for three years from 30.01.2018,
but the site was handed over to the petitioner on
08.05.2019 and as such petitioner could not carry out
mining operation of sand for the period between
30.01.2018 to 08.05.2019 and since the delay of this
period is totally attributable to the State authorities,
therefore petitioner is eligible for further two years time
to carry out mining of sand from Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot
No. 419/Part.
17. In response the respondents contended that it is
incorrect to say that the delay in handing over the site to
the petitioner was cause due to the laches committed on
the part of the respondents, rather, the fact of the matter
is that the petitioner had another stone ming site on
lease and the petitioner had not cleared the outstanding
dues to the State and this is one of the reasons the land
for ming of sand could not be handed over to the
petitioner. There was no fault on the part of the
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
respondents, rather, the delay was on the part of the
petitioner.
18. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the
parties this Court has gone through the lease deed which
was executed between the parties and the same has been
annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition wherefrom it
is evident that lease was valid upto three years from the
date of agreement i.e. 30.01.2018. for ready reference the
relevant part of the said agreement is being quoted
herein which reads as under:
एक पक्षः - M/s K.K. Builder Pvt. ltd., Prof Shri Vikash Singh,
Sio Shri Kaushal Kishore Singh, 27, New Kalimati Road,
Sakichi, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
(इसके बाद से दू सरे पक्ष के पट्टापारी के रूप में उल्लेखित ककये जायेंगे। के बरीच
सम्पन्न ककया जाता है )
जहााँ कदनाांक 26.05.2015 को पूर्ण की गई एक नीलामी में कजसमें सबसे ज्यादा
बोली बोलने वाले (इसके बाद से उन्हें , जहााँ भी मामला हो, बन्दोबस्तीधारी /
बन्दोबस्तीधारीगर् कहा जाएगा) व्यखि/व्यखियोां के साथ बालू के उत्खनन (लघु
िकनज के रूप में) झारिण्ड िकनज लघु समनुदान कनयमावली 2004 के कनयम
12 (सभी सांशोधनोां सकहत) इसके बाद से उि कनयमावली के रूप में कनदे कशत)
अनुरूप इस कलखित अनुबांध (इसके बाद से उि कनयमावली के रूप में कनदे कशत)
के भाग (1) में वकर्णत भूकम के कलए तीन कवत्तीय वर्षों की अवकध के कलए तक के
कलए बोली के कलए नोकिस में दी गई पररखिकतयोां के अनुसार बोली राकश
35,00,000/- (पतीस लाि) का 40 प्रकतशत राकश का 20 प्रकतशत राकश कजला
िनन पदाकधकारी पूवी कसांहभूम, जमशेदपुर के पदनाम से रू० 2,80,000/- (दो
लाि अस्सी हजार मात्र) तथा 40 प्रकतशत का ३० प्रकतशत राकश सांबांकधत पांचायत
सकचव ग्राम पांचायत मलकी के पदनाम से रु० 11,20,000/-(२० ग्यारह लाि
बीस हजार) कुल रु० 14,00,000/- (रु० चौदह लाि) जमा की गई है। कवभागीय
ज्ञापाांक 226/एम० रौधी कदनाांक 25.01.2016 के आलोक में बालू का उठाव
पयाणवरर्ीय स्वच्छता प्रमार् पत्र एवां प्रदू र्षर् कवभाग से प्राप्त Consent to
Operate (CTO) के अनुसार एकरारनामा की कतकथ 30.01.2018 से अगले तीन
वर्षों के कलए मान्य होगा।
भाग-I
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
राजस्व थाना घिकशला, थाना धालभूमगढ़, कजला पूवी कसांहभूम, झारिण्ड के
अांतगणत पांचायत मालकी के स्वर्णरेिा नदी के मौजा कन्यालुका के िाता नां० 297
के प्लॉि सांख्या 419 (P) रकवा 4.00 एकड़/1.618 है०।
भाग-II
बन्दोबस्तीधारी / बन्दोवस्तीधारीगर् को स्वतांत्रता, शखियोां तथा कवशेर्षाकधकार।
बन्दोवस्तीधारी / बन्दोवस्तीधारीगर् झारिण्ड लघु िकनज ररयायत कनयमावली
2044 (तभी सांशोधनोां सकहत) तथा भाग-1 में उखल्लखित नदी तल से बालू का
उत्खनन एवां िानाांतरर् करें गे।
ह०/-कजलािनन पदाकधकारी
पूवी कसांहभूम, जमशेदपुर
19. Thus, it is evident that the lease was executed on
30.01.2018 between the parties and the petitioner
accepted the condition as mentioned in the lease deed.
20. Since the petitioner has voluntarily accepted the lease
deed, therefore, as per the settled position of law the
terms and conditions of the lease deed is binding upon
the parties who are mutually agreed upon the same.
21. It is further settled position of law that terms and
condition of the contract is strictly to be adhered to and
any condition contained therein, if allowed to be flouted,
the same to be contrary to the terms and conditions and
will amount to re-writing the terms and conditions of the
contract.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
Verma HDFC Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 473 has
categorically observed that a concluded contract pre
supposes the existence of at least two parties with
mutual rights and obligations and once a concluded
contract comes into existence, it is axiomatic that such
rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the
terms and conditions thereof.
23. 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 be made to the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. N. Raju
Reddiar and Another", (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.
24. 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 be made to the judgment
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Panna
Lal and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others"
reported 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.
25. 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.
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
26. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein 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 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".
27. Herein admittedly as per the term of the lease deed, the
lease of excavation of sand from said site was valid up to
29.01.2021 and as such lease has already expired and
presently no lease deed was subsisting between the
parties.
28. Further it is evident while that while signing the
contract petitioner was aware that before starting
excavation several types of formalities have to be
followed by him.
29. Further it has averred in the counter affidavit that the
petitioner was permitted to extract 42,06,056 oft of sand
in three seasons but the petitioner failed to upload the
relevant documents for obtaining the online permit,
hence the petitioner could not lift the said quantity of
sand and there was no delay in issuing the online
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
permit by the respondents, the delay was on part of the
petitioner in uploading of relevant documents on the
official website, provided by the respondent no.6 to the
petitioner.
30. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that
writ of mandamus is sought for the grant of two years
further time to the petitioner for excavation of the sand
relating to the said lease deed which has already been
expired in year 2021 and since as per the settled
position of law as discussed and referred hereinabove a
writ of mandamus can be granted in a case where there
is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned
and there is a failure on the part of that officer to
discharge the statutory obligation and the chief function
of a writ is to compel performance of public duties
prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals
and officers exercising public functions within the limit
of their jurisdiction and further under jurisdiction of
Article 226 the term of the contract cannot be re-written
between the parties therefore, this Court is of view that
it is not a fit case for issuance of writ of mandamus.
31. However, if any monetary loss has been caused to the
petitioner due to inaction of the respondent concerned
then petitioner has at liberty to choose the other legal
2025:JHHC:31614-DB
recourse for damages.
32. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation the instant
writ petition stands dismissed.
33. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated : 13/10/2025
Birendra/-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.10.2025
