M/S. Inland Power Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1343 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S. Inland Power Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                        2026:JHHC:4924-DB


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(C) No. 1151 of 2026

     M/s. Inland Power Limited, having its registered office at P-221/2
     Strand Bank Road, Kolkata and Plant at Village Tonagatu, PO-Saram,
     PS-Gola, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand, represented through its
     Director, Sri Giriraj Kumar Jhawar, S/o Late Shyam Sundar Jhawar, R/o
     9003, B. Green View Heights, Bariatu, Ranchi... ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. The Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology,
         Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
     3. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
     4. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh
     5. Central Coalfields Limited, represented through Chief Managing
         Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi ...         ...     Respondents
                                         -----

         CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                           -----
     For the Petitioner                  : Mr. Arun, Advocate
                                           Mr. Yash Raj, Advocate
                                           Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate

For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate

-----

Order No. 02 Dated: 19.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the demand of Rs.82,63,548/- raised

against the petitioner-company for transporting coal without complying

with the requirements of Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention

of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

3. Against the demand, the petitioner instituted Miscellaneous Appeal

bearing No. 05/2020 under Rule 14 of the above referred 2017 Rules.

However, the appellate authority (R-3) dismissed this appeal by order

dated 01.11.2021.

4. Undeterred, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No. 67/2022 before

the Revisional Authority (R-2). Even this revision petition was

dismissed by order dated 18.06.2025.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders raising a

2026:JHHC:4924-DB

demand of Rs.82,63,548/- for transporting mineral in breach of Rule 9

of the 2017 Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

registered Dealer authorized to transport minerals through road

transport. He did not dispute that no transport challan, as

contemplated by Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules, was obtained by the

petitioner. However, his contention was that it was the responsibility of

the Central Coalfields Limited (R-5) to obtain such a transport challan,

and for the fault of the 5th respondent, no demand can be raised upon

the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to elaborate on the above

contention by referring to Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules and also the

Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations of 2005. He submitted

that under no circumstances could the petitioner be faulted for

transporting minerals from the railway siding to its power generation

plant because the primary responsibility for obtaining the transport

challan was that of CCL (R-5) and not of the petitioner. He submitted

that, since the original authority, the appellate authority, and the

revisional authority have not considered or appreciated this contention,

the impugned demand and the orders confirming it warrant

interference by this Court.

8. Mr Piyush Chitresh, the learned counsel for the State respondents,

defended the impugned demand and orders confirming the said

demand based upon the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that

once it was undisputable that Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules was observed

only in breach, the petitioner could not avoid making payments in

terms of the demand raised. He submitted that assuming there was

2026:JHHC:4924-DB

some difference of opinion between the petitioner and the CCL (R-5),

such a difference or dispute would never be a ground for resisting the

payment under the demand. He submitted that, admittedly, it was the

petitioner who had transported the mineral without the transport

challan and, therefore, the petitioner could not avoid payment of the

demand.

9. Mr A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL (R-5),

submitted that there was no obligation on the part of CCL to obtain

the transport challan under the 2017 Rules. He submitted that the

petitioner was a Dealer in the present transaction, and Rule 9 clearly

provides that the Dealer desiring such a challan should obtain it in the

prescribed form through the JIMMS Portal. Accordingly, Mr Mehta

submitted that no blame can be apportioned upon the CCL (R-5) in

this matter.

10. The rival contentions now call for our determination.

11. In the first place, we note that the demand has been confirmed by the

appellate and revisional authorities after affording the petitioner a full

opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, there is no dispute that in this

case, the transportation was undertaken by the petitioner without

obtaining any transport challan envisaged under the 2017 Rules.

Therefore, concurrent findings have been recorded by at least three

authorities regarding the breach of Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules. This

Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction or function as a 3rd

appellate authority in such matters. Therefore, unless a case of

perversity for gross misdirection under the law is made out, this Court,

in the exercise of its power of judicial review in such matters, would be

hesitant to interfere.

2026:JHHC:4924-DB

12. Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules reads as follows:

"9. Transport Challan.- (i) No person shall transport or otherwise remove or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transport challan duly generated through JIMMS. The Dealer desiring such challan should file an application online through JIMMS portal in prescribed Form duly specifying all the particulars prescribed therein.

(ii) The applicant shall upload the original copy of the royalty paid Transport Challan issued by the lessee to such Dealer or the relevant documents showing payment of royalty on such mineral or other adequate proof of such payment.

(iii) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (i), the District Mining Officer/Any such officer authorized by the Competent Authority shall communicate his approval/rejection within fifteen (15) days on the JIMMS portal for issuing the Transport Challan in prescribed form for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as prescribed by him. The District Mining Officer/Any such officer authorized by the Competent Authority may reject an application to grant Transport Challan for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant through JIMMS Portal."

13. The rule is quite peremptory, providing that no person shall transport,

remove, or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a

transport challan duly generated through JIMMS. The rule also refers

to the Dealer desiring such a challan applying online through the

JIMMS Portal in the prescribed form, duly specifying all the particulars

prescribed therein. After that, the applicant is required to upload the

original copy of the royalty-paid transport challan issued by the lessee

to such Dealer, or the relevant documents showing payment of royalty

2026:JHHC:4924-DB

on such mineral, and other adequate proof of such payment.

14. On receipt of an application seeking the transport challan, the

competent authority shall communicate its approval or rejection within

15 days on the JIMMS Portal in the prescribed form. The approval shall

indicate the period of its validity and the terms and conditions subject

to which the same may have been issued. A rejection has to be for

reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant

through JIMMS Portal.

15. At this stage, in order not to prejudice either the petitioner or the CCL

(R-5), we do not wish to conclusively rule on the contention about CCL

being responsible for obtaining the transport challan and not the

petitioner. At least prima facie, the Dealer should apply for and obtain

the challan online. Further, the Dealer/applicant must also upload the

original copy of the royalty-paid transport challan issued by the lessee,

which, in this case, would be CCL, to the Dealer.

16. The above suggests that the party involved in the transportation must

ensure that such transportation of minerals is carried out after

obtaining the challan provided for under Rule 9, referred to above.

Even if there is some dispute between the petitioner and the CCL, the

petitioner cannot refuse to comply with the demand. If the petitioner

believes that CCL should have obtained the transport challan or at

least cooperated in obtaining the transport challan, it is for the

petitioner to raise such a dispute with CCL by filing appropriate

proceedings. However, the petitioner cannot deny that it was involved

in the transportation of the mineral in breach of the provisions of Rule

9 or resist the impugned demands raised upon it by the State

authorities by attempting to apportion the blame on CCL.

2026:JHHC:4924-DB

17. The argument based on the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan

Regulations of 2005, with respect, is misconceived for several reasons.

Firstly, the 2017 Rules have repealed the Jharkhand Mineral Transit

Challan Regulations, 2005 and the Jharkhand Minerals Dealer Rules,

2007. This fact should have been brought to our notice when reliance

was sought to be placed on the 2005 Regulations. Secondly, we fail to

understand how the Regulations of 2005 would, in any manner,

invalidate the demand raised for breach of Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules.

This point was never raised earlier and appears to be an attempt to

confuse the issue.

18. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition. However, we clarify

that if the petitioner has any issues with CCL (R-5), the petitioner may

raise them before the appropriate forum and in accordance with the

law after complying with the impugned demand. Nothing in this order

is intended to even remotely affect or prejudice either the petitioner or

CCL (R-5) regarding such issues or disputes inter se.

19. But based on such inter se issues or disputes, the petitioner cannot

avoid the payment demanded. Even after payment in respect of the

impugned demands, such a dispute can always be raised, and a claim

for recoveries can be made from the CCL, assuming that there is any

merit in the petitioner's contention or the petitioner is confident of its

contention that the entire responsibility was that of the CCL (R-5).

20. The writ petition is dismissed with the above liberty and directions.

No costs.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 19, 2026 Manish/Ritesh A.F.R Uploaded on 20.02.2026