Kiran Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5580 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kiran Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                                      [2025:JHHC:27443-DB]




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P.(C) No.3542 of 2025
                               ------
Kiran Enterprises, a Proprietorship Firm, having its office at Bhagat Singh
Statue, JEMCO Bus Stand, Telo, P.O. and P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), PIN 831004; through its proprietor
namely, Balbinder Singh aged about 47 years, son of Ajit Singh, resident of
Namda Basti, Near Water Tank, Golmuri, P.O. and P.S. Golmuri, Town
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831003.
                                            .... ....                Petitioner
                            Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology
   Department, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and
   P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002 (Jharkhand).

2. Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand,
   having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
   District Ranchi, PIN 834002 (Jharkhand).

3. Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela-Kharsawan, having its office at District
   Collectorate, Saraikela-Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Saraikela, District
   Saraikela-Kharsawan (Jharkhand).

4. District Mining Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan, having its office at
   District Collectorate, Saraikela-Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Saraikela,
   District Saraikela-Kharasawan (Jharkhand).
                                           .....          ....         Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                 ----------
      For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
      For the State      : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
                            ------
            th
03/Dated: 09 September, 2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: -

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent-authorities to process the application for renewal of mining lease dated 06.03.2025 filed by Petitioner pertaining to stone-boulders in respect of an area of 3.45 acres, situated at Mouza Bidri, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 1177(P), District Saraikela-Kharsawan and, consequently grant renewal of

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

mining lease in favour of Petitioner.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to grant renewal of mining lease of stone boulders to Petitioner for a period from 20th July, 2025 to 19th July, 2035 in respect of an area of 3.45 acres, situated at Mouza Bidri, Khata No. 118, Plot no. 1177(P), District Saraikela- Kharsawan.

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short 'JMMC Rules') vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-3), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-4) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-5) do not prohibit grant of renewal of mining lease, but only provides, inter alia, that any new lease over 3 hectares of land would be granted in terms Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-6).

(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition,

required to be enumerated, which read as under: -

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was granted a

mining lease vide Lease Deed dated 13th May, 2017 pertaining to

stone boulders over an area of 3.45 acres, situated at Mouza Bidri,

Khata No. 118, Plot No. 1177(P), District Saraikela-Kharsawan.

Said mining lease was valid for 10 years commencing from 20 th

July, 2015 to 19th July, 2025.

(ii) Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of mining lease vide

application for renewal dated 06.03.2025 before the competent

authority in statutory Form 'F' and along with said renewal

application, Petitioner enclosed requisite Challan towards deposit

of Renewal Fee of Rs. 5,000/-. But the said application for renewal

was not being considered by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner,

Saraikela-Kharsawan on the sole ground that after amendment

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

carried out by virtue of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession

(Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral

Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019, there is no provision for

renewal of mining lease ignoring the fact that the State of

Jharkhand, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Major

Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957, framed

'Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and under Rule

22 of the said Rules, provisions have been incorporated for grant of

mining lease and it has been provided, inter alia, that mining lease

shall be granted as per statutory Form 'E' which has been

prescribed under the Rules.

(iii) It is the case of the petitioner that the statutory Form 'E' prescribed

for grant of mining lease, in which lease has been granted in favour

of Petitioners vide Part-VIII, contains therein Promissory Note

which has been extended by State of Jharkhand to a lessee. Under

the said Promissory Note contained in Part-VIII, Clause-3, it has

been clearly provided, inter alia, that a mining lessee can claim

renewal for one time of its lease for a period not more than the

period for which original lease has been granted. As such, the

Petitioners' mining lease was scheduled to expire and, accordingly,

in terms of Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, Petitioner filed an application

in statutory Form 'F' before Respondent-authority for renewal of

their mining lease by depositing requisite Application Fee of Rs.

5000/- before the office of the District Mining Officer along with

all requisite/necessary documents as required for renewal of

mining lease.

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

(iv) It is also the case of the petitioner that the vide Jharkhand Minor

Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, Rule 9 of JMMC

Rules, 2004 was amended extensively and pursuant to said

amendment, it was provided, inter alia, that mining lease for minor

minerals contained in Schedule-2 of the Rules having an area of

more than 5 hectares of land, shall be granted through the process

of Auction. The said Rule only provided for grant of fresh mining

lease, that too, over Raiyati land having an area of more than 5

hectares through the process of auction but the said Rule had not

put an embargo of auction in the matter pertaining to renewal of

mining lease.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid facts of the

case has submitted that the respondent-authorities, in not processing the

application for renewal of mining lease of petitioner, are acting contrary

to statutory mandate and the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to

provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and

is also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing for the respondent-

State has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on

08.08.2025.

5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. Submission, therefore, has been made by the respondent-State that the

present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment

passed by this Court.

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and

perused the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ

petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C)

No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter

of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:-

"15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e.,

(i) Whether the lease can be renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension.

(ii) Whether seeking extension of the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period.

(iii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule 9(च), wherein, the embargo has been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022.

(iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case.

(v) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is held to be per incuriam.

22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 (ङ) and (च), wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9(च) provides that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022.

23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

will be upto 31.03.2022.

24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(छ) as referred above 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 as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction.

25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (ज)(12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9(च) will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares.

26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9(ङ).

27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9(च) putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction.

42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9(च) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner.

44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9(ङ) of the JMMC Rules and once the application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9(च).

46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision."

[2025:JHHC:27443-DB]

9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has

found that the issue involved herein is identical to that of the case, which

has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

10.Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the

judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025.

11.In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Saurabh/-

A.F.R.