M/S Maa Tara Stone Works vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5818 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Maa Tara Stone Works vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                            2025:JHHC:28433-DB




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(C) No. 6238 of 2019
  M/s Maa Tara Stone Works, represented through its proprietor Sumanto
  Kumar Bardhan (aged about 50 years), son of Sri Jitendra Nath Bardhan,
  resident of Village Barhet, P.O. Barhet, P.S. Barhet, District- Sahibganj
  (Jharkhand).                                  ...       Petitioner

                                    Versus
  1. The State of Jharkhand.
  2. The Mines Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O. &
     P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
  3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District-
     Sahibganj (Jharkhand).
  4. 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 Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha,Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. S.C.-II

---------

Order No.07/Dated 15th 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: -

"For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs,

order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the

order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the

Mines Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi in 2025:JHHC:28433-DB

Revision Case No. 75/2016 whereby and

whereunder without considering the case of the

petitioner in right perspective with respect to deem

refusal of his application for renewal against the

mining lease in question on merit even issuance of

the Environmental Clearance Certificate in the year

2018 vide Memo No. EC/DEIAA/2017-18/105 dated

13.03.2018, the aforesaid revision has been rejected

in view of the guidelines issued by the Department of

Mines in the month of August 2019 as being the

matter time barred not on merit and according

accordingly after quashment of the aforesaid order

to direct the respondent no.2 consider the case of the

petitioner on merit and also Environmental

Clearance Certificate being issued much prior to

issuance of the alleged guidelines, since no any

order can be enforced from the retrospective effect

and further for grant of such other relief/reliefs for

which the petitioner is legally entitled for."

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 for grant of mining

lease for the mineral stone over Plot No. 165 and 166

comprising for an area of 3.59 acres of land situated under

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

Mouza-Borna, District Sahibganj, a Mining Lease for

stone was granted to the petitioner sometime in the year

2010 for the term for 5 years with effect from 20.08.2010

to 19.08.2015 and before expiry of the term of the

aforesaid lease in terms of the statutory provisions the

application for its further renewal was filed by the

petitioner along with all the requisites on 06.05.2015.

(ii) After submission of the aforesaid application, the same

was required to be disposed of within the prescribed time

limit, but in absence of Environmental Clearance

Certificate and Mining Plan the said application of the

petitioner remain pending and could not be disposed of

within the time.

(iii) As per statutory provisions, once the prescribed period for

disposal expires, the competent authority has no

jurisdiction to entertain such an application, and it is

deemed rejected.

(iv) The petitioner had taken imitative to obtain the Mining

Plan as well as the Environmental Clearance Certificate

since during subsisting of the lease, the same were not

required and accordingly, the aforesaid documents were

not in possession of the petitioner.

(v) The petitioner applied for grant of Environmental

Clearance Certificate, the same was issued to the

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

petitioner by the District Level Environment Impact

Assessment Authority, Sahibganj vide Memo No.

EC/DEIAA/2017-18/105 dated 13.03.2018, but prior to

issuance of the aforesaid Certificate, the application of the

petitioner for renewal of the mining lease in question had

already been stood deem rejected due to afflux of time

and accordingly even without the communication of the

order in terms of the statutory Rules defines under

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004, the

petitioner preferred a Revision before the Mines

Commissioner, Ranchi being numbered as Revision Case

No. 75/2016.

(vi) Thereafter, revision was filed within time, but even

thereafter the matter remain pending for about a period of

3 years and lastly 27.09.2019, the matter was heard and

pursuant to Departmental Letter No. 1379 dated

19.08.2019, the aforesaid revision of the petitioner was

rejected on the ground that the Environmental Clearance

Certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner after

the statutory period being provided in the amendment

Rule of 2017 and revised period of limitation mentioned

in the Departmental Letter No. 1379 dated 19.08.2019.

(vii) According to the Rule 9 (1) (e) of the amended JMMC

Rule, 2017, the prescribed period of 180 days for

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

submitting the Environmental Clearance Certificate had

expired on 28.08.2017, but subsequently vide Letter No.

1379 dated 19.08.2019, the decision was taken to extend

the period of limitation of 180 days, on the ground of

interim order of stay being passed by the National Green

Tribunal.

(viii) The petitioner had taken initiative for issuance of

Environmental Clearance Certificate in the year 2017 and

the delay was caused due to the circumstances beyond the

control of the petitioner and even thereafter, the matter

remained pending before the concerned authority and

lastly, on 13.03.2018, the alleged Environmental

Clearance Certificate was issued, but prior to that the

extended period for submission of the aforesaid certificate

had already been expired and accordingly, the prayer was

also made by the petitioner for condonation of delay in

submission of the Environmental Clearance Certificate

and also prayed for extension of time for disposal of his

renewal application dated 06.05.2015 on merit not on

technical ground.

(ix) After hearing both parties and also the averments made by

the respondent no.4, the application of the petitioner for

renewal of the mining lease in question had been deemed

refused due to non-submission of the Environmental

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

Clearance Certificate before expiry of the statutory period

of 180 days as per Rule 9 (1) (e) of JMMC (Amended)

Rule 2017, and even after extension of the period, vide

Departmental Letter No. 1379 dated 19.08.2019, the said

certificate could not be submitted by the petitioner and

accordingly, without taking sympathetic consideration and

also the fact that the matter of the petitioner was pending

for about 3 years before the revisional authority and in the

meantime, the departmental letter came into force with

retrospective effect and by virtue of the aforesaid letter

vide order dated 27.09.2019, the aforesaid revision of the

petitioner was rejected by the Respondent No.2.

(x) Hence, the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 is not

sustainable in the eye of law since the case of the

petitioner could not be considered by the revisional

authority on merit rather on technicality of law, the

petitioner has been deprived to get extension of time for

disposal of his renewal application pending since 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority

concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the

fact in right perspective.

4. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned AC to Sr. SC-II appearing for the

respondent-State has submitted that the similar issue has already

been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

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.

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

parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate 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:-

(i) The issue which requires consideration, i.e., 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

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

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

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

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 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

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

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

2025:JHHC:28433-DB

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."

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

has found that the issues involved herein are 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.)

Date: 15th September, 2025 Suman-Abha/A.F.R.