Jharkhand High Court
Trustline Mining & Minerals ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.988 of 2025
------
Trustline Mining & Minerals represented through its Partner namely,
Rashid Ahmed, aged about 47 years, son of Late Ali Ahmed
Resident of Near Dam Road, Upper Basti, Barbil, At & P.O.-Barbil,
P.S.-Barbil, District-Kendujhar (Odisha) PIN: 758035
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. & District-
Sahibganj (Jharkhand)
3. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj,
District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand) .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I
------
C.A.V. on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking therein for the following reliefs: -
"For issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or
direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to issue
Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) under Rule 11(a) of Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 to the petitioner for
the applied fresh mining lease of stone over an area of
7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and 44(P),
Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana
No.22P, District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand)
AND/OR
For issuance of any other appropriate relief(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing
conscionable and equitable justice to the petitioner."
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: -
(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has submitted
an application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone over an
area of 7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and 44(P),
Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana
No.22P, District-Sahibganj for 10 years in the prescribed format
along with requisite fees and documents in terms of Rule 9 of
the JMMC Rules, 2004 and an acknowledgement dated
01.08.2019 in Form-B was issued to the petitioner by the
District Mining Officer, Sahibganj under Rule 10 of JMMC
Rules, 2004.
(ii) Due to non-disposal of the application within the
prescribed period of 120 days as per Rule 11(1) of the JMMC
Rules, 2004 by the respondents and consequently, due to
expiry of the statutory period, the petitioner's application dated
01.08.2019 became deemed refused and time barred by lapse
of time. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several
applications of different dates in the prescribed format along
with requisite fees and documents and respective
acknowledgments in Form-B were issued to the petitioner, but
due to non-disposal of the applications within the prescribed
period of 120 days by the respondents and expiry of the
respective statutory periods, all the aforesaid applications
became deemed refused and time barred by lapse of time.
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
(iii) Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the consent
agreements dated 06.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and no
objection of the raiyats of the lands of the applied stone mining
lease before the respondents in connection with grant of the
applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner.
(iv) In pursuant to the application dated 01.08.2019, the
Circle Officer, Pathna submitted inquiry report for the applied
fresh mining lease of stone in favour of the petitioner before the
District Mining Officer, Sahibganj vide letter no.12 dated
16.06.2021.
(v) Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahibganj Forest
Division, Sahibganj has submitted forest clearance for the
applied fresh mining lease of stone vide letter no.1508 dated
07.08.2021.
(vi) The petitioner submitted a representation dated
18.11.2021 before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for
issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining
lease of stone to the petitioner. The petitioner has also
deposited the land possession certificates for the applied fresh
mining lease of stone obtained under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 vide memo no.641 dated 17.12.2024 from the Circle
Officer, Pathna.
(vii) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation
dated 30.12.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining
lease of stone to the petitioner.
(viii) The petitioner also submitted representations dated
30.12.2024 to the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for
issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining
lease of stone.
(ix) Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the
respondents have already taken decision to issue Letter of
Intent (L.O.I.) in favour of the petitioner but due to some ulterior
reasons, the L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease of stone
has not been issued to the petitioner till date. Due to non-
issuance of L.O.I., the petitioner has not been able to proceed
for approval of Mining Plan and for issuance of environmental
clearance certificate for the applied mining lease. The matter of
issuance of L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease to the
petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner,
Sahibganj for the last more than five years. The said order is
the subject matter of the instant petition.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has
submitted that there are no faults or laches on the part of the
petitioner and the lapse of time and expiry of the statutory
periods were caused due to failure on the part of the
respondents to dispose of the matter within the respective
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
statutory periods.
4. It has been contended that the action of the respondents in
keeping the matter pending for a long period of time and not
issuing the Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) to the petitioner is highly
arbitrary, illegal, mala-fide and unjustified and the action of the
respondents amounts to denial of statutory rights of the
petitioner and hence, the same requires interference by this
Court.
5. It has been contended that under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the respondents, especially the
respondent no.2, is fit to be directed to issue Letter of Intent
(L.O.I.) under Rule 11(a) of J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 to the
petitioner for the applied fresh mining lease of stone within a
specified period for the ends of justice.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-
State
6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State has submitted that since the statutory mandate has not
been followed, therefore, there cannot be any direction by the
Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
7. It has been contended that the prayer made by the petitioner in
the present writ application deserves to be rejected in its
entirety, primarily on the ground that, the petitioner has not
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
come out with clean hands as it appears from the record that
the application which was presented by the petitioner was not
accompanied with the agreement with the raiyats of the
proposed mining lease area and initially only an affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner and afterwards, an agreement has
been submitted with respect to one of the Plots, i.e.. Plot No.24
(P) which was submitted in the year, 2021.
8. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not
submitted the duly executed lease agreements with the Raiyats
with respect to the entire proposed mining lease area and as
such, the application of the petitioner itself is incomplete.
Moreover, the Raiyats of the lease hold area have appeared
before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and submitted an
application dated 31.08.2024 raising objections over the grant
of letter of Intent to the petitioner as well as the agreements
submitted by the petitioner. The raiyats have neither received
the agreed consideration amount nor provided employment, as
guaranteed by the partners of the petitioner mining firm and
moreover, the Raiyats have not given their consent for mining
operations over their land.
9. The argument has also been advanced that even accepting
what is being submitted by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner to be correct, then also, no lease license is to be
issued in view of the deemed rejection as the same was
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
incomplete and the petitioner had only submitted notarized
agreements with the raiyats and as such, the lease agreement
was later submitted in the year 2021, however, the same was
only with respect to one part of the entire mining lease area,
hence, the application of the petitioner has remained
incomplete and therefore, deemed rejected for want of
statutory documents by virtue of Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, amended in
the year 2017, 2019 and 2020.
10. Learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and, as
such, is fit to be dismissed.
Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring the claim of
the respondent-State, has submitted that raiyats have raised
objection for granting mining lease in favour of the petitioner
company and respondent in support of the aforesaid statement
has annexed the letter of some of the raiyats and has submitted
that the said letter, which is annexed in the supplementary
counter affidavit is fabricated one and therefore, the claim of the
respondent is not fit to be acceptable.
Analysis
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading
made in the writ petition.
13. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
submitted an application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone
over an area of 7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and
44(P), Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana
No.22P, District-Sahibganj for 10 years in the prescribed format
along with requisite fees and documents in terms of Rule 9 of the
JMMC Rules, 2004 and an acknowledgement dated 01.08.2019
in Form-B was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining
Officer, Sahibganj under Rule 10 of JMMC Rules, 2004 but due to
expiry of the statutory period, the petitioner's application dated
01.08.2019 became deemed refused and time barred by lapse of
time.
14. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several applications of
different dates in the prescribed format along with requisite fees
and documents and respective acknowledgments in Form-B were
issued to the petitioner, but after expiry of the respective statutory
periods, all the aforesaid applications became deemed refused
by virtue of JMMC and time barred by lapse of time.
15. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the consent agreements
dated 06.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and no objection of the raiyats
of the lands of the applied stone mining lease before the
respondents in connection with grant of the applied fresh mining
lease of stone to the petitioner.
16. In pursuant to the application dated 01.08.2019, the Circle Officer,
Pathna submitted inquiry report for the applied fresh mining lease
of stone in favour of the petitioner before the District Mining
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
Officer, Sahibganj vide letter no.12 dated 16.06.2021.
17. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahibganj Forest
Division, Sahibganj has submitted forest clearance for the applied
fresh mining lease of stone vide letter no.1508 dated 07.08.2021.
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.11.2021
before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for issuance of Letter
of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the
petitioner. The petitioner has also deposited the land possession
certificates for the applied fresh mining lease of stone obtained
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide memo no.641 dated
17.12.2024 from the Circle Officer, Pathna.
18. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
30.12.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for issuance
of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of
stone to the petitioner.
19. The matter of issuance of L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease
to the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner,
Sahibganj for the last more than five years.
20. The aforesaid inaction of authority concerned, is the subject
matter of the instant petition.
21. Thus, in the nutshell, it can be stated that the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with a prayer
to direct the respondents to issue the Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour
of the Petitioner for grant of Mining Lease for stone.
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
22. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer Rule 9 (क), 9(घ), 9(ङ),
9(च), 11(क) and 11 (ख) and (ग) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2017, 2019 and 2020
for ready reference, the aforesaid provisions are being referred
herein :-
"9(1) (क) रै यती भूमि के 03.00 हे ० क्षेत्र एवं उससे
कि क्षेत्र पर पत्थर, िोरि एवं मिट्टी लघु खमिज के
खिि पट्टा उपायुक्त द्वारा स्वीकृत मकया जाएगा।
परन्तु मक सभी सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं झारखण्ड लघु खमिज
सििुदाि (संशोधि) मियिावली, 2019 के मियि-6(ख)
के परन्तु िें उल्लेखखत क्षेत्र एवं खमिज को छोड़कर
सभी रै यती क्षेत्र पर बालू छोड़कर अन्य सभी लघु
खमिज के खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृमत झारखण्ड लघु
खमिज िीलािी मियिावली, 2017 िें मिरूमपत
प्रावधािों के अन्तगगत इलैक्टामिक िीलािी के िाध्यि
से मिदे शक, खाि के द्वारा मकया जाएगा। परन्तु राज्य
सरकार आवश्यकतािुसार िीलािी हे तु उपायुक्त को
भी प्रामधकृत कर सकती है ।
9(घ) इस अमधसूचिा के मिगगत होिे की मतमि से पूवग िें
सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के रै यती क्षेत्र
पर खिि पट्टे हे तु प्राप्त आवेदि पत्र स्वतः अयोग्य हो
जाएं गे ।
9(ङ) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के
रै यती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे आवेदि पत्र मजसिें इस
अमधसूचिा मिगग त होिे की मतमि से पू वग झारखण्ड लघु
खमिज सििुदाि मियिावली, 2004 के मियि-11
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
अन्तगगत Letter of Intent (आशय का पत्र) मिगगत
हो चुका है , उसे इस अमधसूचिा के मिगग त होिे की
मतमि से 180 मदिों के अं दर पयाग वरण स्वीकृमत एवं
खिि योजिा अमिवायग रूप से सिमपगत करिा होगा,
अन्यिा उिका आवेदि स्वतः अस्वीकृत हो जाएगा ।
9(च) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के
रै यती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे खिि पट्टे , जो िवीकरण
अन्तगगत िे एवं पयाग वरणीय स्वीकृमत खिि योजिा
प्राप्त िहीं रहिे के कारण कालमतरोमहत हो गये हो,
उिके पट्टे की अवमध पट्टा स्वीकृमत/िवीकरण की मतमि
से 31 िाचग, 2022 तक के मलए अवमध मवस्ताररत
िािी जाएगी, बशते मक अमधसूचिा की मतमि के पू वग
खिि पट्टा के अस्वीकृमत /रद्द/व्ययगत होिे का आदे श
िहीं पाररत मकया गया है , परन्तु वैसे खिि पट्टे पर
कोई खिि तब तक िहीं मकया जा सकेगा, जबतक
मक खिि हे तु आवश्यक पयाग वरणीय स्वीकृमत/वि एवं
पयाग वरण मवभाग की स्वीकृमत खिि योजिा स्वीकृमत
प्राप्त िहीं हो जाता है । आवेदक को सभी वां मछत
अिापत्ती 180 मदिों के अन्दर सिमपगत करिा होगा ।
9(12) मियि-9 (1) (घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तिा
9 (10) पूवग से स्वीकृत/आवमदत लघु खमिज के 5.00
हे क्टेयर क्षेत्र से कि क्षेत्र पर भी लागू होंगें।"
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
-------
11(क) खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृमत के मलए दाखखल प्रत्येक
आवेदि के मलए उसकी प्राखप्त को तारीख के 120 मदिों
के भीतर आशय का पत्र मिगगत मकया जायेगा।
(ख) खिि पट्टा के प्रत्येक आवेदि की स्वीकृमत सक्षि
प्रामधकार से प्रतरणीय स्वच्छता प्रिाण पत्र दाखखल
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
करिे के 30 मदिों के भीतर कर मदया जायेगा।
(ग) खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृमत के मलए दाखखल आवेदि
पत्र पर 120 मदिों के अंदर आशय का पत्र
(एलओआई) मिगगत िहीं होिे की खिमत िें आवेदि पत्र
स्वतः कालमतरोमहत होकर अस्वीकृत िािा जायेगा। "
23. It is evident therefrom that there has been an amendment in the
Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of
Rule 9 (क) under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a
proper auction.
24. It is evident from the aforesaid Rule, particularly, Rule (ग) of Rule 11
of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 that the
application submitted for grant of mining lease if not finalized within
120 days, it will be deemed to be rejected.
25. It is the case of the petitioner that after submission of the application
of the Petitioner, the same has been deemed rejected due to
inaction of the authority concerned and after deemed rejection of the
aforesaid application of the Petitioner, several applications have
been filed, which is still pending before the authority concerned.
26. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he had applied for grant
of mining lease in the year 2019 and since then, 06 years have
been elapsed.
27. Further, it would also be evident from the provision, as contained in
Rule 9(घ) and Rule 11 of the amended Rule, that all the pending
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
applications submitted for grant of mining lease before issuance of
Amended Rule, on government land or Raiyati land of more than
05.00 hectares, will be automatically deemed to be rejected.
28. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (12) as quoted and
referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9 (1)(घ), 9(1)(ङ),
9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तथा 9(10) will be applicable even if the area of
land is less than 5 hectares.
29. It is pertinent to mention herein that the provision as inserted by way
of amendment in the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily
commanded the authority that the mining lease will only be granted
by virtue of auction.
30. Thus, from the aforesaid logical deduction, it is evident that when
the renewal and extension cannot be granted after the 31.03.2022
as per the mandate of Rule 9 of Rule 2004, there is no question of
granting the fresh lease after 31.03.2022 without following the
mandate of Rule 2004, particularly Rule 9 (क) wherein it has been
provided that lease for mining purpose can only be granted on
holding a proper auction. The aforesaid issue has already been
decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the writ petition being W.P. (C)
3560 of 2025, wherein, it has been categorically observed that the
license if renewed or extended, the validity of which is after
31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the
period of lease but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be
granted by way of auction.
31. In the instant case, it is evident from the pleading of the counter
affidavit that application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease
has been deemed rejected by virtue of Rule 9 (घ) and Rule 11 of the
Rule 2004.
32. It has further been pleaded that the application which was presented
by the petitioner was not accompanied with the agreement with the
raiyats of the proposed mining lease area and initially, only an
affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and afterwards an
agreement has been submitted with respect to one of the Plots, i.e.,
Plot No.24 (P) which was submitted in the year 2021.
33. It has further come on record that the petitioner has filed an affidavit
along with the application instead of giving consent of letter
(agreement) with Raiyat, namely, Ganga Pahariya for Plot No.24P,
the date mentioned in the affidavit is dated 17.07.2019. However,
again, the petitioner has submitted the agreement with Massey
Pahadin for the same Plot No.24P to the mining office on
06.03.2021.
34. It has further been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the Raiyats
of the lease hold area have appeared before the District Mining
Officer, Sahibganj and submitted an application dated 31.08.2024
raising objections over the grant of letter of Intent to the petitioner as
well as the agreements submitted by the petitioner. The raiyats
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
contended that they have neither received the agreed consideration
amount nor been provided employment, as guaranteed by the
partners of the petitioner mining firm and moreover, the Raiyats
have not given their consent for mining operations over their land.
The aforesaid letter/application dated 31.08.2024 has been brought
on record by way of filing of supplementary counter affidavit by the
respondent.
35. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the application submitted
by the petitioner for grant of mining lease was deemed refused in
terms of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as the
same was incomplete, as the petitioner had only submitted
notarized agreements with the raiyats and as such, the lease
agreement was later submitted in the year 2021, however, the same
was only with respect to one part of the entire mining lease area,
hence, the application of the petitioner has remained incomplete
and therefore, deemed rejected for want of statutory documents.
36. It requires to refer herein that learned counsel for the petitioner has
raised suspicion over the authenticity of the said letter dated
31.08.2024 but it is the considered view of this Court that since
authenticity of said application/letter dated 31.08.2024 is the
disputed question of fact, hence, the same cannot be adjudicated
herein.
37. Further, it is apparent from the perusal of the provision of Rule 5(4)
of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 that the free
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
and prior consent of Gram Sabha is mandatorily required for grant
of mining lease in scheduled areas. However, in the case of the
Petitioner, even though, a Gram Sabha resolution was passed in the
proposed area, but the objections have been made by the Raiyats
of the land for extending the lease hold rights to the Petitioner for
conducting mining operations by making application before the
District Mining Officer, Sahibganj which clearly implies that the
Raiyats and the members of the local village, are not in favor of the
petitioner's proposed mining in the lease hold area, and resultantly,
the Letter of Intent was not granted to the petitioner.
38. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect as
well as the provisions as stipulated under Rule 2004, particularly
Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the JMMC Rule 2004 , is of the view that no
positive direction can be passed in favour of the petitioner, since,
the petitioner, who had applied for grant of mining lease in the year
2019 which was not allowed in his favour due to deemed rejection,
as requisite document has not been submitted as also some of the
raiyats of the said land has raised objection by way of filing
representation dated 31.08.2024 before the authority concerned.
39. Further, 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:26889-DB
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. In the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC
309 at paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows:
"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
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition...."
44. 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.
45. 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.:
"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
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
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; 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
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
12. These very principles have been adopted in our
country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop.
Society Ltd. v. Sipahi 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 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."
46. The Mandamus which is being sought for by the High Court in
exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
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.
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."
47. 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.
48. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position, is now
adverting to the facts of the case in order to consider, as to whether
there is any in-action on the part of the authority concerned so as to
issue mandamus in the present case to issue direction upon them to
issue LOI in favour of petitioner.
2025:JHHC:26889-DB
49. It needs to refer herein that by virtue of Rule 9 and Rule 11 of Rule,
2004, the application which has been filed in year 2019 has already
been deemed to be rejected and as per the counter affidavit, some
raiyats have raised the objection on the said land, therefore, in the
aforesaid circumstances, it is the considered view of this Court that
there is no requirement herein for issuance of any prerogative writ.
50. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that
it is not a fit case where any command is to be issued upon the
State for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner.
51. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed.
52. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
