Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022
Kamal Khan, aged about 67 years, son of Late Besarat Ali
Khan, resident of village Komarpur, P.O. Md. Bazar, P.S. Md.
Bazar, District Birbhum (West Bengal). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having
its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
2.Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3.The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
5.The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
6. The Circle Officer, Dumka, P.O Dumka, P.S. Dumka,
District Dumka. ... Respondents
with
Kamal Khan, aged about 67 years, son of Late Besarat Ali
Khan, resident of village Komarpur, P.O. Md. Bazar, P.S. Md.
Bazar, District Birbhum (West Bengal). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
2.Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3.The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
5.The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
6. The Circle Officer, Raneshwar, Dumka P.O Raghunathpur,
P.S. Raneshwar, District Dumka. ... Respondents
with
M/s Sahil Stone Works, a partnership firm represented
through one of its partner Ali Reja, aged about 48 years,
son of Gulam Mustofa, resident of Gangadda, Radipur,
Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, Jharkhand. Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and
Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at
District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District
Pakur, (Jharkhand).
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand). ...Respondents
with
Pinku Sekh, aged about 37 years, son of Gulam Mustafa,
resident of resident of Gangadda, Radipur, Pakur, P.O. &
P.S. Pakur, Jharkhand. .... ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and
Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand). ...Respondents
with
Goutam Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Shambhu
Singh, resident of Nichubazar, Ward No. 5, Nalhati, M,
Birbhum, P.O. & P.S. Birbhum, West Bengal.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand). ...Respondents
with
M/s Popular Stone Works, a proprietorship concern
represented through its proprietor Jamirul Islam, aged
about 46 years, son of Late Md. Mafijuddin Sk, resident of:
Villaage & P.O. Tejhati, P.S. Nalhati, District Birbhum,
West Bengal.
Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and
Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur,
(Jharkhand). ...Respondents
with
Tahid Alam, aged about 52 years, son of Md. Kasem,
resident of Sonatorepara, Suri-I, P.O. Suiri, P.S. Suiri,
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
District Birbhum (West Bengal).
... Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
having its Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology.
Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
5. The Certificate Officer cum Additional Collector, Dumka,
P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
6. The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S.
Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
7. The Circle Officer, Raneshwar, Dumka, P.O
Raghunathpur, P.S. Raneshwar, District Dumka
(Jharkhand). ... ...Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advcoate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG II
--------
CAV on 20/08/2025 Pronounced on 18 /09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
1. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ
petitions are identical, therefore, at the request of learned
counsel for the parties, all these matters have been tagged
together. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Common Prayer made in the writ petitions:
2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, for the relief as quoted as under:
3. The prayer as made in WPC No. 2859 of 2022 reads as
under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter
contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-
5) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and
whereunder in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8)
of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the
petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.
1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs) within a
period of one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of
7,00,000 cubic feet sand from Mouza-Ragdih/ Naurangi,
Thana No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 410,
Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty
amount of Rs. 52, 50,000/-.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
contained in memo no. 664/m. dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-
6) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit the
outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter
contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7
days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for
recovery of the amount.
4. The Prayer as made in WPC No. 3077 of 2022 reads as
under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the
letter contained in memo no. 824/M. dated 16.06.2022
(Annexure-9) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka
whereby and where under in purported exercise of power
under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has been directed
to pay a sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) within a period of
one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of 22,500
cubic feet sand from Anchal- Ranehswar, Mouza- Diguli,
Plot No. 2, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including
the penalty amount of Rs. 1,68,750/-.
5. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4462 of 2022 reads as
under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Memo No. 1847 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued
to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter
and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of
differential royalty on 4,47,000 cubic feet; twice the
value of 89,79,000 cubic feet stone excavated and
penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022
contained in memo no. 1897 (Annexure-5) in terms of
which the copy of the sectional measurement has been
enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his
reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent
would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing the letter no. 2097 dated 29.09.2022
(Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur
directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of
the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be
raised as per the report of the measurement team.
d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 288
dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District
Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit
double the amount of value of mineral of i.e
Rs.4,78,82,340/- through online mode within 15 days
failing which it will be recovered in accordance with law;
e. For quashing the letter no. 2005 dated 05.09.2023
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
(Annexure-8) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur
directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount
and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may
not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
6. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4463 of 2022 reads as
under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in
Memo No. 1846 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued
to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter
and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of
differential royalty on 1,31,000 cubic feet; twice the
value of 2,86,11,400 stone excavated and penalty for
furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022
contained in memo no. 1896 (Annexure-5) in terms of
which the copy of the sectional measurement has been
enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his
reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent
would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing the letter no. 2092 dated 29.09.2022
(Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur
directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of
the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be
raised as per the report of the measurement team.
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 286
dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District
Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit
Rs. 40,11,89,182 i.e. double the amount of value of
mineral through online mode within 15 days, otherwise
legal action will be taken for recovery.
e. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 287
dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-8) issued by the District
Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit
royalty of Rs. 9,27,480/-; D.M.F.T. of Rs. 2,78,244/-;
Environmental Cess of Rs. 9,275/-; Income Tax of Rs.
18,550/-; Penalty of Rs. 2,000/- through online mode
within 15 days failing which it will be recovered in
accordance with law;
f. For quashing the letter no. 2004 dated 05.09.2023
(Annexure-9) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur
directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount
and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may
not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
7. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4466 of 2022 reads as
under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in
Memo No. 1848 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued
to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of
differential royalty on 5,82,500 cubic feet; twice the
value of 1,69,26,000 stone excavated and penalty for
furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022
contained in memo no. 1895 (Annexure-5) in terms of
which the copy of the sectional measurement has been
enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his
reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent
would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing. the letter no. 2096 dated 29.09.2022
(Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur
directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of
the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be
raised as per the report of the measurement team.
d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 294
dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District
Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit
royalty of Rs. 41,24,100/-; D.M.F.T. of Rs. 12,37,230/-;
Environmental Cess of Rs. 41,241/-; Income Tax of Rs.
82,482/-; Penalty of Rs. 2,000/- and double the amount
of value of mineral of Rs. 20,39,84,634/- through online
mode within 15 days failing which it will be recovered in
accordance with law;
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
e. For quashing the letter no. 2014 dated 05.09.2023
(Annexure-8) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur
directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount
and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may
not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
8. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4648 of 2022 reads as
under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in
Memo No. 1901 dated 02.09.2022(Annexure-3) issued
to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter
and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of
differential royalty on 2,48,625 cubic feet; twice the
value of 2,24,36,490 cubic feet stone excavated and
penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 10.09.2022
contained in memo no. 1977 (Annexure-5) in terms of
which the copy of the sectional measurement has been
enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his
reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent
would proceed ex-parte;
9. The prayer as made in WPC No. 5214 of 2022 reads as
under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s)
or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for
- 12 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 625/M.
dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-4) issued by the
District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and
whereunder in purported exercise of power under
Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals
Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner, alongwith
one other person, has been jointly directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and
Five Lakhs) within a period of one week, for the
illegal excavation of 70,000 cubic feet sand from
the Mayurakshi River, situated at Mouza Ragdih/
Naurangi, District Dumka;
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for
quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 664/M.
dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the
District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been directed to
deposit the outstanding amount as per directions
contained in letter contained in Memo No. 625/M.
dated 02.05.2022 within 7 days, failing which
appropriate action would be taken for recovery of
the amount;
(iii) Upon quashing of the aforesaid letters dated
- 13 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
02.05.2022 and 09.05.2022, for issuance of
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s)
particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the
entire proceedings in connection with Certificate
Case No. 02/2022-23, including the demand notice
dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure-10), initiated against
the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 85,86,050/-,
pending before the Certificate Officer cum
Additional Collector, Dumka;
Facts of the case:
10. Since similar facts and prayers have been made in these
batch of writ petitions, as such for the sake of convenience,
the brief facts of the first case of the batch matter, i.e., of
W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022, is referred as under:
11. These writ petitions relate to the illegal demand raised
by the respondents against the petitioners and in this case
[W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022] it is for the purported excavation
of sand from Mayurakshi river, Mouza-Ragdih/Naurangi,
District-Dumka even though the petitioner has no concern
with the excavation of sand either from Mayurakshi river or
any other place whatsoever.
12. The District Mining Officer, Dumka lodged a First
Information Report dated 06.03.2022 for the offences under
Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 4 and 54
- 14 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 [in
short „JMMC Rules, 2004‟] against the petitioner and one
Tauhid Alam for allegedly lifting sand from the river falling
under Mouza Ragdih No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No.
401/410 an area 5095 Acres and also in the Mouza Naurangi
No. 21/17 Anabadi Khata No. 218, Plot No. 2357/2895
falling under the territory of State of Jharkhand, through the
machines and vehicles, and is transporting the same in the
State of West Bengal.
13. It is stated that the petitioner is a reputed businessman
engaged in the business of Black Stone Mining at Panchami
under P.S. Md. Bazar, District Birbhum and has got no
concern with the business of sand. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the above-mentioned case by the
informant with an ulterior motive and ill intention.
14. As per the allegation in the first information report the
petitioner and one Tauhid Alam were engaged in illegal lifting
of sand from Mayurakshi river at night, however, it is highly
improbable to believe the prosecution story that the petitioner
being an old age person suffering from several ailments would
flee away at night from the river bed along with the JCB
Poclain and other heavy machinery used in mining of sand
and the informant along with the other police party was
- 15 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
unable to caught hold of them. Stand has been taken that no
machine or vehicle or any type of other articles of this
petitioner has been recovered from the place of occurrence.
Further, the petitioner states that the petitioner has no
concern either with the mining of sand from Mayurrakshi
River or with the co-accused person namely Tauhid Alam @
Mansoor Alam @ Mansoor Mia and the petitioner has never
visited the river bed of Mayurrakshi river for any reason
whatsoever.
15. The petitioner is running the business of stone mining
under name and style of M/s Kamal Stone Quarry and the
petitioner has entered into mining lease dated 01.02.2018
with the State of West Bengal for the period of 15 years for
mining of stone. The petitioner is running the said business
in compliance of the mining rules and laws and has also
obtained „Consent to Operate‟ from West Bengal Pollution
Control Board. The petitioner is also engaged in mining of
Black Stone under the name and style of M/s Jayanti Stone
Quarry and the petitioner has entered into mining lease dated
01.02.2018 with the State of West Bengal for the period of 15
years in Mouza- Nischintapur, District- Birbhum. The
petitioner is running the said business in compliance of the
mining rules and laws and has also obtained „Consent to
Operate‟ from West Bengal Pollution Control Board.
- 16 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
16. The petitioner is a respectable person and an Income
Tax Payee and even from his I.T. return it will be apparent
that he has no business of sand nor he deals in sand. The
petitioner states that the District Magistrate, Birbhum has
also certified that the petitioner, who is a businessman in
District Birbhum, is a person of good moral character.
17. It has been stated that to the utter shock and dismay to
the petitioner, pursuant to the registration of the first
information report, on the basis of inspection report of the
Circle Officer, Raneshwar, the District Mining Officer, Dumka
in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the JMMC
Rules, 2004 vide letter contained in memo no. 625 dated
02.05.2022 directed the petitioner to make the payment of
sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs)
within a period of one week, for illegal excavation of 7,00,000
cubic feet sand from Mouza-Ragdih/Naurangi, Thana No.22,
Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 410, Mayurakshi river,
District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs.
52,50,000/- without following the due procedure of law.
18. The petitioner came to know about the registration of
the FIR only on receipt of the aforesaid letter. Thereupon, the
District Mining Officer, Dumka again issued letter contained
in memo no. 664 dated 09.05.2022 as reminder to the letter
dated 02.05.2022 and directed the petitioner to deposit the
- 17 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter
contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7
days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for
recovery of the amount.
19. The petitioner states that the petitioner vide letter dated
20.05.2022 replied to letter dated 02.05.2022 issued by the
District Mining Officer, Dumka stating therein that the
petitioner has never visited the Mayurrakshi river and he is
not engaged in the business of sand and the petitioner has
been falsely implicated at the instance of sand mafias of the
locality. The petitioner further replied that no show cause has
been issued upon the petitioner by the Circle Officer,
Raneshwar or any other authority prior to imposition of
penalty amount.
20. The petitioner states that the petitioner is old aged
person suffering from several ailments and has undergone
bypass heart surgery in the year 2019, and also suffering
from renal problem as well as high blood sugar. It will not be
out of place to mention that the petitioner has also
undergone cataract operation and has poor vision capability
at night, therefore, it is impossible for the petitioner to be
involved in illegal mining of sand at night.
- 18 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
21. The petitioner has no concern with the lifting/
excavation of sand from Mayurakshi river in mouza- Ragdih/
Naurangi, District- Dumka and he has never visited the site.
22. The petitioner states that the respondents have raised
an illegal demand on account of purported lifting/ excavation
of sand only on the basis on surmises and conjectures
without any basis/ material to show that the petitioner was
involved in lifting of sand from Mayurakshi river in District-
Dumka.
23. The petitioner states that even from perusal of the
impugned demand letters, it would be evident that there is no
material/evidence discussed in the said letters to show that
the petitioner was engaged in the lifting/excavation of sand
from Mayurakshi river.
24. Even otherwise the respondents have not acted in
consonance with the settled principles of law including the
principles of natural justice as the respondents have
straightway issued demand letter upon the petitioner for
payment of penalty along with the cost of sand lifted from the
Mayurakshi river.
25. The petitioner states that the impugned order passed by
the District Mining Officer is a mere eye wash as no physical
and scientific measurement was done by the authorities in
support of the alleged illegal lifting/excavation of sand.
- 19 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner prior to the inspection conducted by
the respondent authorities nor any notice was served upon
the petitioner prior to imposition of penalty amount upon the
petitioner vide impugned letters.
26. The respondents conducted an inspection behind the
back of the petitioner without giving any prior information to
the petitioner. It is further submitted that that respondent
authorities have resorted to post decisional hearing in
computation of penalty amount along with other charges
upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 58(4) of the Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which is violative of
principles of natural justice.
27. It is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to issue
notice upon the person concerned disclosing the
circumstances under which the proposed proceedings is
sought to be initiated for the alleged extraction of mineral
28. The petitioner submits that the penalty order cannot be
passed by the respondent authorities only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures in absence of any evidence in
support of the decision.
29. The petitioner states that no penal order can be passed
without giving notice or hearing the affected persons
- 20 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
irrespective of the fact as to whether the Statue provides for
the same or not.
30. It is further stated that the issuance of the impugned
demand letter directing the petitioner to make the payment of
penalty along with the royalty/ cost of mineral without asking
for any explanation/reply is liable to be quashed and set
aside on the ground of malice and unreasonableness on the
part of the respondent authorities.
31. It has been submitted that the alleged inspection
conducted by the respondents behind the back of the
petitioner, without issuing any show cause to the petitioner,
is non-est in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that no
opportunity of hearing given to the affected person should not
be an empty formality and reasonable opportunity of hearing
must be given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted
that any action which has civil consequences for any person
cannot be taken by the authorities without complying with
the principles of natural justice. Further ground has been
taken that respondents being instrumentality of the State,
every action or administrative decision must be subject to the
doctrine of equality and fair play. It has been submitted that
that the impugned letter(s) for imposition of cost of the sand
allegedly lifted by the petitioner along with other penalty
upon the petitioner is an arbitrary and mala fide act which is
- 21 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
in violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
32. Being aggrieved with the impugned order(s), the writ
petitioners have approached to this Court by filing writ
petitions for redressal of their grievance.
33. The respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit.
For the sake of convenience, the averment as made in the
counter affidavit filed in one of the writ petitions being WPC
No. 2859 of 2022 is referred as under:
34. It has been stated that in pursuance of direction issued
by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench
Kolkata in OA no. 50/2021/EZ in the matter of Debashis
Das Vs State of Jharkhand the respondents used to inspect
Sand ghat of Dumka District and take proper action against
those who were involved in illegal sand mining. During
inquiry, it has been found that in the instant writ petitioner
and one Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam of Village Sonaterpara
District Birbhum (WB) were found involved in illegal sand
mining in the area of Nawrangi and Ragdih sand ghats of
Mayurakshi River and an FIR bearing Raneswar PS Case No.
8/2022 U/S 379 IPC and4 and 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 has
been registered against both persons. Further, as per the
direction of the Deputy Commissioner(s) of the concerned
district(s), the Circle Officer(s) and other block officials made
- 22 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
inquiry and vide his letter no 401/R dated 30.04.22 reported
that the instant petitioner and Tohid Alam excavated
700x200x5=700000 cubic feet sand from Ragdih Sand ghat
Thana no. 22 plot no. 410 pertaining to Anabadi khata no. 24
of Mouza Ragdih illegally. On the basis of FIR lodged against
the writ petitioner and Tohid Alam, report was submitted by
Circle Officer Raneswar and the respondent no 5 issued
demand notice bearing letter no 625/m dated 02.05.2022
directing them to deposit Rs. 5250000 the cost of Royalty of
700000 cubic feet sand @ Rs. 750 per hundred cubic feet and
its equal penalty of Rs. 5250000; Total Rs. 10500000.00
within a week and reminder notice i.e. memo no. 664/m
dated 09.05.2022 was also issued. After receiving demand
notice and reminder notice as aforesaid the writ petitioner
and Tohid Alam had not paid any amount as demanded by
the respondent no. 5 within stipulated period of time,
therefore respondent no. 5 instituted certificate case against
writ petitioner and Tohid Alam before the certificate officer
cum Additional Collector Dumka vide requisition no.
02/2022-23 and letter no 685/m dated 18.05.2022 to recover
the demanded amount of Rs. 10500000/- from writ petitioner
and Tohid Alam jointly under the provisions of section 4 and
6 of Bihar and Orissa Public demand recovery Act 1914.
- 23 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
35. Further, as per direction of National Green Tribunal
Eastern Zone Kolkata the respondent no. 5 issued a letter no.
929/m dated 11.07.2022 to the Circle Officer, Raneswar
directing him to submit report by measuring the Ragdih sand
ghat situated on plot no. 410 that how much illegal sand
mining has been done by the writ petitioner Kamal Khan and
another person Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam.
36. In pursuance of aforesaid direction, the Circle Officer
Raneswar Vide letter no 626/R dated 15.07.22 reported that
the writ petitioner Kamal Khan excavated 160 x 200x5 =
Total 160000 cubic feet sand from Ragdih sand ghat situated
over plot no. 401/410 pertaining to anabadi no. 24 of Mouza
Ragdih No. 22, District Dumka illegally 5 Tohid Alam @
excavated 540x200x5= Total 540000cubic feet sand from
Ragdih sandghat
37. On the basis of measurement report submitted by Circle
Officer Raneswar the respondent no. 5 sent letter no. 968/m
dated 16.07.2022 to the Certificate Officer Mines Cum
Additional Collector, Dumka requesting him to severally
recover Rs. 2400000/- from the writ petitioner, Kamal Khan
which is the cost and fine of 160000 cubic feet sand illegally
excavated. And the cost of 540000 cubic feet sand and fine
total Rs 8100000/-shall be recovered from Tohid Alam @
Mansoor Alam against the total amount of Rs. 10500000/- in
- 24 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
which the Certificate case has been filed against them jointly.
The letters have also been sent to the writ petitioner and
Tohid Alam @Mansoor Alam for their information. As per
measurement report submitted by Circle Officer Raneswar on
15.07.2022, the writ petitioner Kamal Khan is liable to pay
Rs. 2400000/- which is the cost and fine of 160000 cubic feet
illegally excavated. And Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam is liable
to pay Rs. 8100000/- which is the cost and fine of 540000
cubic feet sand illegally excavated.
38. Further, it has been stated that recently the Circle
Officer, Raneswar (Respondent no. 6) vide his letter no.
518/R dated 08.06.2022 reported that this writ petitioner
excavated 150x25x6=22500 cubic feet sand from plot no. 02
of khata no. 114 of Mouza Diguli no. 44 of Raneswar block
and on the basis of said report a demand notice vide memo
no. 824/m dated 16.06.2022 has also been issued against
the writ petitioner directing him to deposit its cost and equal
fine total Rs. 337500/- within a week otherwise a certificate
case will filed for its recovery. The respondent no. 5 send a
reminder letter no. 945/m dated 13.07.2022 and requested
him to deposit the amounts but still now the writ petitioner
has not paid the said amount to the mining department.
Submission of the Petitioners
- 25 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners has appeared in all
the cases and has submitted that the District Mining Officer
is having no jurisdiction to raise demand. Submission has
been made that the punishment with respect to the illegal
mining or excess mining as referred in Section 4 sub section
1(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 [Herein after referred to act „ MMDR Act, 1957‟] is
to be dealt with under the provision of Section 21(1) of the
MMDR Act, 1957, in which, it has been provided that
whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-
section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and
with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of
the area.
40. The submission, therefore, has been made that save and
except the provision as contained under Section 21(1) of the
MMDR Act, 1957 there is no other provision under the
MMDR Act, 1957 to inflict punishment and as such the illegal
doer is only to be punished on the basis of reference of
punishment as referred in Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act,
1957 by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction in view
of the fact that punishment in the nature of imprisonment for
a term which may extend to five years, and with fine which
may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area, which
- 26 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
can only be inflicted by the competent court of criminal
jurisdiction.
41. It has been pointed out that the Co-ordinate Bench has
delved upon the said issue and has held that the illegal doer
can only be punished by way of complaint made by the State
Government before the Court of criminal jurisdiction, as
would be evident from order dated 15.07.2025 passed in W.P.
(C) No. 322 of 2025.
42. Submission, therefore, has been made that herein also
the penalty in terms of the money has been inflicted by the
District Mining Officers of the concerned districts, which is
contrary to the provisions as contained under Section 21(1) of
the MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the said demand, as impugned
in these writ petitions, are fit to be set aside on the ground of
want of jurisdiction and authority.
43. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the impugned order(s) requires no
interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of respondents-State:
44. Learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents-State has submitted that it is incorrect on the
part of the writ petitioners to take the ground that it is only
under Section 21(1) of the Act, 1957 the illegal doers are to be
inflicted with the punishment of imprisonment and/or fine
- 27 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
rather if Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 will be taken
into consideration then it would be evident that the State
Government has also been conferred with the power to deal
with illegal doers, which says that whenever any person
raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any
land, the State Government may recover from such person
the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already
been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from
such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the
period during which the land was occupied by such person
without any lawful authority.
45. It has been submitted that Section 21(5) of the MMDR
Act, 1957 is in consonance with the judgment referred by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union
of India & Ors [(2017) 9 SCC 499]. The argument has been
advanced that the moment the State Government has been
conferred with the power to deal with the illegal doers in a
case of illegal mining or illegal extraction of any mineral
including sand and if in that eventuality the State
Government has formulated a rule under conferment of
power under Section 15 of the Act, 1957 or under Section
23C of the Act 1957 thereof it cannot be said that only on the
basis of filing of complaint the illegal doer is involved in
connection with illegal mining or illegal transportation or
- 28 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
storage of the mineral, they can be dealt with rather the State
can also go to inflict the punishment in terms of money and
for the aforesaid purpose, the provisions have been under the
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions‟ Rule, 2004 [amended
in 2017], known as Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
(Amendment) Rules, 2017 [in short „JMMC Rules, 2017‟]
enacted under the provisions of Section 15 of MMDR Act,
1957 by way of the provision as contained under Rule 54(1)
of Rule 2004. The provision which is pari materia to Section
21(5) is available as under Rule 54(5) of the JMCC Rules,
2004 as amended in 2017.
46. The argument, therefore, has been advanced that if the
provision of MMDR Act, 1957 along with the rules formulated
thereunder by the State Government will be taken into
consideration together then it would be evident that the State
is also competent enough to inflict punishment in terms of
the recovery of money on the basis of registration of
complaint.
47. The submission has been made that the view which has
been taken by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court
that only recourse available to institute a complaint,
therefore, is not in consonance with the judgment rendered
by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) where it has been held that
- 29 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
the State has been conferred with the power to deal with such
situation and in that view of the matter and on the basis of
the principle of binding precedence, the judgment rendered
by the Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Common
Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) will be applicable
being binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India and not the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
Analysis
48. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleadings available on record as also the legal
positions of law.
49. This Court has gathered from the argument that
following issues have crept up for adjudication:
(i) Whether the District Mining Officer has jurisdiction
to issue the demand due to want of conferment of
power as per the provisions of Section 26(2) of the
MMDR Act, 1957?
(ii) Whether the view of the Co-ordinate Bench that
only remedy available is to institute complaint to
deal with such situation, is binding on the principle
of judicial discipline; Or the view which has
already been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India
- 30 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
& Ors. (supra) that the State Government has
been conferred with the power to deal with such
situation as would be evident from the provision of
Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, will be binding
upon this Court by virtue of Article 141 of the
Indian constitution?
50. Both the issues since are interlinked and, as such, are
being taken up together for their consideration.
51. The issue has been agitated by learned counsel for the
writ petitioners, that the remedy available to deal with such
situation is by way of filing a complaint and that is the
mandate of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as also
having been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of
this Court in WPC No. 322 of 2025 vide order dated
15.07.2025, upon which heavy reliance has been placed also
by appending the said order in the paper book.
52. We, in order to consider the said issue, need to refer
herein the aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench WPC No. 322 of 2025. For ready reference, the
relevant part of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is
quoted as under:
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily
argued that the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to issue
the impugned demand notice. In support of the said
contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Rajhans
- 31 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Refractories Private Limited (Supra.) wherein the demand
notices issued by the District Mining Officer under section
21(5) of the Act, 1957 has been quashed being without
jurisdiction.
26. Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957 empowers the State
Government to recover unlawfully raised mineral or its price
along with rent, royalty, or tax for the period of unauthorized
occupation of the land from which the said mineral has been
extracted from those persons who are involved in act of
illegal mining. Section 26(2) of the Act, 1957 empowers the
State Government to delegate its power exercisable under the
said Act to subordinate officers or authorities by issuing
notification in the official gazette specifying therein the
powers and conditions in relation to the matters concerning
mining and minerals.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before
this Court a copy of notification issued by the Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand vide Memo
No. 1072/M dated 06.05.2025 in exercise of the power
conferred under section 26(2) of the Act, 1957. By virtue of
the said notification, delegation has been made to the
Director, Mines and Additional Director, Mines to exercise the
powers conferred under section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the
Act, 1957 throughout the State of Jharkhand whereas the
Deputy Director, Mines and District/Assistant Mining Officer
have been authorised to exercise the said powers within their
territorial jurisdiction.
28. Thus, at the time of issuance of the impugned demand
notice i.e, on 30.12.2023, no such delegation of power was
made by the State Government. Otherwise also, vide
notification dated 06.05.2025, the respondent no. 2 has not
been delegated the power conferred under section 21(3),
21(4) and 21(5) of the Act, 1957.
29. Moreover, on bare perusal of the rule 54(6) of the Rules,
2004 it would be evident that the same provides for
realization of the penalty equivalent to double the price of
extracted minor mineral from a person who is accused of
- 32 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
extracting the same without having valid mining lease. It
further empowers the State Government to take action for
realization of rent, royalty or tax for the period of occupation
of the land without the permission of lawful authority.
Section 21(5) also empowers the State Government to recover
rent, royalty or tax from the person who has raises, without
any lawful authority, any mineral from any land.
30. Thus, though rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004 as well as
section 21(5) of the Act, 1957 empowers the State
Government to realize rent, royalty or tax, however both the
provisions are silent about the authority by whom the
penalty is to be recovered.
31. In the case of Hindalco Industries (Supra), the issue fell
for consideration of this Court as to whether the District
Mining Officer has jurisdiction to impose penalty under
Section 54(5) of the Rules, 2004. In the said case, this Court
while referring various provisions of the Act, 1957 as well as
the Rules, 2004, quashed the order of penalty passed by the
District Mining Officer under Section 54(5) of the Rules, 2004
observing as under-----
32. In the present case also, we are of the view that the
penalty equivalent to double the price of minor mineral
extracted by a person who is an accused of extracting the
same without having valid mining lease as stipulated under
rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004, is to be recovered by making a
complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate or before
the Special Court, if any, constituted under Section 30-B of
the Act, 1957 which is empowered to take cognizance in the
matter, for imposing penalty under rule 54(6) of the Rules,
2004.
33. It is well settled that if a law provides that an action
should be taken in a specific manner, it implies that it must
be done in that way, and any other method is not permitted.
This is to ensure that the intent of the law is duly followed
and the actions taken are legally sound.
34. It is thus held that the impugned demand notice issued
by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction.
- 33 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
35. For the reasons as aforesaid, the demand notice as
contained in Memo No. 1325/M dated 30.12.2023 issued by
the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The
respondents are however at liberty to demand and collect
penalty from the petitioner in accordance with law. All other
points including the factual issues raised by the petitioner in
the writ petition are left open to be decided by the competent
court of law, if the situation so arises.
36. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
37. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
53. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the Co-
ordinate Bench has passed order on the premise of Section
21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 thereby coming to the
conclusion that only the complaint case is to be filed to deal
with such situation.
54. This Court is now proceeding to examine the issue as to
whether only remedy available is to lodge a complaint or the
State in the administrative side can also recover by way of
inflicting penalty. This Court, therefore, is referring herein the
relevant provision of Article 21 of the MMDR Act, which reads
as under:
"21. Penalties.― [(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with
fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that
any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a
continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to
- 34 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such
contravention continues after conviction for the first such
contravention.]
(3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of
the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may
be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any
authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the
State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary,
obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land.
[(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised
or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any
land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or
any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other
thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially
empowered in this behalf.
(4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized
under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order
of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-
section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the
directions of such court.]
(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any
mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from
such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has
already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover
from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the
period during which the land was occupied by such person without
any lawful authority.
[(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall
be cognizable.]
[Explanation.--On and from the date of commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2021, the expression "raising, transporting or causing to raise or
transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in
this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or
transportany mineral by a person without prospecting licence,
- 35 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
mining lease or composite licence [exploration licence] or in
contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]"
55. It is evident from Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957
that in case of the violation of provision of sub-section (1) or
sub-section (1A) of section 4, there is provision that the
violator shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five years and with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
56. Section 21(1) thus clarifies that if the „authorities of the
State‟ has chosen to deal with such situation by taking a
decision to institute a complaint then that is available under
Section 21 (1) of the Act, 1957.
57. Section 21(2) is also in the light of provision of Section
21(1), which says that any rule made under any provision of
this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing
contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees for every day during which such
contravention continues after conviction for the first such
contravention.
58. But if the content of sub-section (5) of Section 21 will be
taken into consideration wherefrom it is evident that in case
any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral
- 36 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
from any land, the State Government may recover from such
person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has
already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also
recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case
may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by
such person without any lawful authority.
59. The aforesaid provision thus confers power upon the
State Government to recover from such person the amount in
proportion to the damage caused or the minerals extracted.
60. Section 15 of the Act 1957 at this juncture also needs to
be referred herein. For the ready reference Section 15 of the
Act, 1957 is quoted as under:
15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect
of minor minerals.―(1) The State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for, regulating
the grant of 3 [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral
concessions] in respect of minor minerals and for purposes
connected therewith. 4 [(1A) In particular and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―
(a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications
for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions
may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;
(b) the time within which, and the form in which,
acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications may
be sent;
(c) the matters which may be considered where applications in
respect of the same land are received within the same day;
(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which
and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or
other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed;
- 37 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or
other mineral concessions;
(f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases,
mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed
by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or
training in matters relating to mining operations;
(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent,
fines or other charges and the time within which and the
manner in which these shall be payable;
(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be
protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or
otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially
affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations;
(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other
vegetation such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by
reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in
the same area or in any other area selected by the State
Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of
rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the
quarrying or mining lease;
(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a
quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be
transferred;
(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads power
transmission lines, tramways, railways, serial rope ways,
pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining
purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or
other mineral concession;
(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act;
(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of
quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the
authority to which such reports and statements shall be
submitted;
(n) the period within which and the manner in which and the
authority to which applications for revision of any order
passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the
- 38 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
fees to be paid therefore, and the powers of the revisional
authority; and
(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.]
(2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made
by a state Government regulating the grant of 1 [quarry
leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect
of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the
commencement of these Act shall continue in force. [(3) The
holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession
granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay
3 [royalty or dead rent, whichever is more] in respect of minor
minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent,
manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the rate
prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State
Government in respect of minor minerals:
Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate
of 3 [royalty or dead rent] in respect of any minor mineral for
more than once during any period of 4 [three] years.]
[(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section
(3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for
regulating the provisions of this Act for the following,
namely:―
(a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall
work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas
affected by mining under sub-section (2) of section 9B;
(b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral
Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; and
(c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral
Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under
section 15A.]
61. We are herein dealing with the minor mineral as per the
allegation of the extraction of sand. The State Government
under the aforesaid provision as under sub-Section 1 thereof
by notification in the official gazette, frames rules for
regulating the grant of mining lease or a quarrying licence or
- 39 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
other mineral concession in respect of minor mineral and for
purposes connected therewith. The State Government has
been conferred with the power to make out rule and in
pursuant thereto rule has been formulated as JMMC Rules,
2004.
62. Another rule has also been formulated in view of
provision of Section 23(C) wherein power has been conferred
upon the State Government to make rules for preventing
illegal mining, transportation and storage of mineral and in
pursuance thereto a separate rule has been formulated as
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
63. At this juncture it will be purposeful to refer Rule 54 of
Rules 2004, which is being quoted as under:
"[54, ख (1)
, इ ख
ओ , ,
, ख
50,000/-
[(2) इ ख
,
ख
[(3)
- 40 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
, इ
ख
[(4)
(2) ,
ख
]
[(5) " ख
, ख , ख
ख / ख
' '
ख ख , 2004 ' '
ख इ ,
01 ख
50,000.00 ( ) 1,00,000/-( ख)
'
ख
ख
इ (Bond Paper)
,
ख ,
इ
,ख
'[(6) , ख / - ,
ख इ ओ
,
ख [ख
]
,
,
- 41 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
,
"
64. Rule 54 starts from the sub-provision (1) wherein the
punishment has been provided of one year imprisonment or
fine or Rs. 50,000/- thereafter the sub-provision (2),3,4
provide seizure of the vehicles/tools and arresting of the
concerned person by the competent officer whereas the
quantum of punishment has been provided under Rule 54(5).
65. It would be relevant herein also to refer the judgment
rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common
Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra).
66. Background of the said case is that a public interest
petition was preferred for alleged widespread illegal mining
and non-compliance with environmental and forest
clearances in Odisha, leading the Supreme Court to initially
restrain 102 mining leaseholders from operating. It involved
complex issues of lease renewals under the Mines and
Minerals Acts and Rules and the need for compensation for
illegally extracted ore. The said 102 mining leases in the State
of Orissa were identified as they were lacking the necessary
permits and approvals to operate, leading to a Supreme Court
order on 4th April, 2016 to suspend their operations. The case
also focused on the validity and process of renewal of mining
leases under the existing laws. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
ordered to ensure that mining companies pay compensation
- 42 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
for illegally extracted ore. The judgment passed in the case of
Common Cause had broader impact and it has become
landmark decision emphasizing the protection, social equity
and stringent regulation of natural resources in India‟s
mining Sector.
67. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
judgment is quoted as under:
"84. Briefly therefore, the overall purpose and objective of the MMDR
Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder is to ensure that mining
operations are carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of
responsibility including responsibility in protecting and preserving the
environment and the flora of the area. Through this process, the holder
of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well as the laws
pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication,
the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "the FC
Act"). Exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out. If the holder of a
mining lease does not adhere to the provisions of the statutes or the
rules or the terms and conditions of the mining lease, that person is
liable to incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. In addition
thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which provides for the termination
of a mining lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central
Government, after consultation with the State Government is of the
opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and
mineral development, preservation of natural environment, prevention of
pollution, etc. then the Central Government may request the State
Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease."
153. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Amicus
were of the opinion that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act
require that the entire price of the illegally mined ore should be
recovered from each defaulting lessee. Similarly, in its affidavit, the
Union of India differs with the recommendation of CEC. According to the
affidavit of the Union of India this would be contrary to the statutory
scheme and in fact 100% recovery should be made under the provisions
of Section 21(5) of the MMDR. We may note that only to this extent, the
learned Attorney General differed with the view expressed by the Union
of India and submitted that the recommendation of CEC to recover only
30% of the value of the illegally mined ore should be accepted.
154. In our opinion, there can be no compromise on the quantum of
compensation that should be recovered from any defaulting lessee -- it
should be 100%. If there has been illegal mining, the defaulting lessee
must bear the consequences of the illegality and not be benefited by
pocketing 70% of the illegally mined ore. It simply does not stand to
reason why the State should be compelled to forego what is its due from
the exploitation of a natural resource and on the contrary be a party in
filling the coffers of defaulting lessees in an ill-gotten manner.
68. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph in particular
paragraph 84, wherein it has been observed that the overall
- 43 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
purpose and objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules
framed thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are
carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of
responsibility including responsibility in protecting and
preserving the environment and the flora of the area.
69. It has further been observed that if the holder of a
mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as
well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also
by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, (for short "the FC Act"), exploitation of the
natural resources is ruled out.
70. If the holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the
provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and
conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to incur
penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. It has further
been observed that in addition thereto, Section 4-A of the
MMDR Act which provides for the termination of a mining
lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central
Government, after consultation with the State Government is
of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation
of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural
environment, prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central
- 44 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Government may request the State Government to
prematurely terminate a mining lease.
71. Further at paragraph 153, it is observed that the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Amicus
was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the
MMDR Act require that the entire price of the illegally mined
ore should be recovered from each defaulting lessee.
Similarly, in its affidavit, the Union of India differs with the
recommendation of CEC. According to the affidavit of the
Union of India this would be contrary to the statutory scheme
and in fact 100% recovery should be made under the
provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR. We may note that
only to this extent, the learned Attorney General differed with
the view expressed by the Union of India and submitted that
the recommendation of CEC to recover only 30% of the value
of the illegally mined ore should be accepted.
72. Further, disapproving the opinion of learned Amicus to
recover only 30% of the value of illegally mined ore, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court at paragraph 154 of the judgment has
been pleased to hold that there can be no compromise on the
quantum of compensation that should be recovered from any
defaulting lessee -- it should be 100%.
73. The moment the said dictum has come by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court, it goes without saying that the said recovery is to
- 45 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
be made by the State Government. The purpose of referring of
the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause is to
have a view on the applicability for the purpose of considering
that the view which has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court binds this Court on the principle of judicial
discipline or the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in the case of Common Cause being the law of land under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
74. Thus, it is evident from the judgment rendered in the
case of Common Cause, in particular paragraphs 84, 153
and 154, as quoted and referred hereinabove, and
considering the content of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act,
1957, it can be safely inferred that the State Government has
got power to recover the amount by way of inflicting
penalties.
75. The moment the State Government has been referred in
the statute as also by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the judgment
rendered in the case of Common Cause, then the
applicability of the rule framed either under Section 15(1) or
23(C)(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957will automatically be
applicable since under the said provision of rule, the State
has been conferred with the power/authority for realization of
the said amount said to be in compliance of the mandate of
- 46 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the judgment
rendered in the case of Common Cause.
76. We are here now discussing on the issue of the binding
effect of the judgment both on the principle of precedential
value and the judicial discipline. There is no dispute about
the legal proposition of law that the Co-ordinate Bench is not
supposed to differ with the view taken by another Co-ordinate
Bench on the principle of judicial discipline. But if the view
has been taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the same issue,
then the question would be as to whether the principle of
judicial discipline would be allowed to prevail upon the binding
precedence of a law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court being a
law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
77. It is settled position of law that Judicial discipline to
abide by declaration of law by the Supreme Court, cannot be
forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it
even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, 1950, reference in this regard be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of Union of India Vs General Shri Kant Sharma
(2015) 6 SCC 773, for ready reference the relevant
paragraph is being quoted as under:
37. Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
"141.Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all
courts.--The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
- 47 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
courts within the territory of India."
41. In view of Article 141 the law as laid down by this Court, as
referred to above, is binding on all courts of India including the High
Courts.
43. ----Therefore, it is always desirable for the High Court to act in
terms of the law laid down by this Court as referred to above, which is
binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,
allowing the aggrieved person to avail the remedy under Section 30
read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.
78. This Court, considering the fact that the judgment
rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common
Cause, wherein the State Government has been conferred
with the power to recover the amount as per the mandate
under Section 21(5) MMDR Act, 1957, hence, the same being
the binding precedent is binding upon this Court.
79. Therefore, we, on the basis of proposition of law as laid
down by Hon‟ble Apex Court and considering the mandate of
Section 21(5), are of the view that in addition to the
complaint, as required to be instituted under Section 21(1) of
MMDR Act, 1957 or 54(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended
in 2017, the State has also got competence to raise the
demand, which is impliedly clear from the observations made
by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (supra)
in particular paragraph 153 and 154 thereof.
80. Now, the only question remains that the power is there
under Section 54(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 by instituting a
complaint/criminal case. The conferment of power under
Section 54(5) of the Rules 2004 to the authority and reading
- 48 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
together with Rules, 2017, which we have dealt with in the
judgment rendered in the case of Brahmaputra Metallics
Limited vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.[ W.P.(C)
2456 OF 2020], wherein it has been dealt with that the
power to inflict penalty in view of Rule 13 of the Rule, 2017
which is to be inflicted in terms of the provision of Rules 54 of
Rules, 2004 and as such we have held that the penalty under
Rule 13 of Rule 2017 is to be inflicted by the authority as has
been referred under Rule 54(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004.
81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section
21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been
conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its
price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax
owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein,
the State Government means the functionaries of the State,
i.e., the executive authority. Accordingly, power has been
conferred upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated
6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the
issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the
reason notification has been issued conferring power upon
the representative(s) of the State Government and therefore,
the State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State
Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6)
of the Rules, 2004.
- 49 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
82. So far as the power which has been exercised by the
District Mining Officer under the provision of Rule 54(8) now
it is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has been taken
that under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer has no
jurisdiction, but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra)
will be taken into consideration along with the provision of
Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act,
1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the
State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision
has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State
Government which itself suggest that the authority, if
conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the
demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of
Rule 2004.
83. The issues framed by this Court are answered
accordingly against the petitioner.
84. It needs to refer herein that the learned Advocate
General has submitted that the Government has come out
with notification being Notification No. 212 dated 6th May,
2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the
MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of
the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities
i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand;
- 50 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of
Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial
jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its
territorial jurisdiction.
85. It has further been submitted that if the petitioner
intends to approach to the appropriate authority as per the
conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May,
2025 the petitioner may do so. However, he has submitted
that the said concession is nothing to do with the ground as
has been raised regarding the power to exercise under Rule
54(6) to inflict punishment in terms of the money.
86. In response, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for
the writ petitioners, has submitted that so far it relates to the
passing of decision afresh in the changed circumstances of
conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May,
2025 is concerned, he has agreed to the same and has
submitted that the matter may be remanded for fresh
consideration to be done by the competent authority in view
of conferment of power to the authorities concerned.
87. This Court considering the concession as has been
recorded on behalf of writ petitioners, as has been given at
Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Indrajit Sinha,
conceding to the submission made by learned Advocate
General to approach the authority in pursuance to the
- 51 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
conferment of power vide notification dated 06.05.2025 is of
the view based upon such concession that the impugned
order needs to be interfered with for the purpose of deciding
the issue fresh.
88. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed
and set aside.
89. The matters are remitted before the authorities
concerned having the power as conferred vide notification no.
212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of
Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3),
21(4) and 21(5) for deciding the issue afresh.
90. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned
authority raising all available points for its consideration in
accordance with law within three weeks from date of passing
of this order.
91. The authority concerned will decide the issue afresh on
its own merit within a further period of six weeks. Even if the
petitioner will not avail that liberty, then also the authority
concerned will have liberty to pass the order afresh in
accordance with law.
92. It is made clear that the orders so passed on the basis of
concession of the learned counsel for the parties, as referred
above, is nothing to do with the adjudication of the issue
regarding the power which is to be exercised by the authority
- 52 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
in view of power as contained under Section 54(6) of the
Rules 2004 as answered herein above.
93. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the
writ petitions stand disposed of.
94. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
18th September, 2025
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 53 -
