The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition praying for a stay on a mining lease resettlement notice. The Court held the matter should not be entertained as the petitioner had availed an alternative remedy before the Mines Commissioner.
Petitioner granted liberty to pursue the application before the Mines Commissioner if pending.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4209 of 2008
Ranjit Kumar
.... Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand & others … Respondents ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : None --- Order No. 03 Dated 18th July, 2019
None appears either for petitioner or the respondents.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents for restraining them from giving effect to the notice published in the District Gazette for resettlement of the mining lease area to the petitioner in respect of the Plot No. 253 and 254, measuring an area of 4.47 acres of land without affording opportunity and without giving reasonable time to the petitioner to submit the requisite documents.
It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1995 mining lease for stone was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Plot Nos. 253 and 254, measuring an area of 4.47 acres of land which remained in operation for a period from 23.03.1995 to 22.03.2005. The petitioner has stated that he had filed an application for renewal of licence 90 days prior to the end of lease along with the requisite documents. The renewal application of the petitioner was rejected on 19.02.2005 on the ground that the required documents were not submitted by the petitioner.
In the counter affidavit has been stated that the first renewal of the mining lease granted to the petitioner was for a period of 10 years from 23.03.1995 to 22.03.2005 and the petitioner had submitted an application for second renewal on 19.02.2005. The said application was rejected on account of non- submission of requisite papers i.e. royalty clearance certificate, Income Tax Return and consent of Raiyat etc. It has further been stated that in terms of the Notification published in the District Gazette, two applicants had already filed application for grant of lease which is pending for disposal. It further appears that the petitioner has approached the Mines Commissioner against the rejection of his lease renewal application. It therefore appears that the petitioner had already availed of his remedy by filing an application against
the rejection of renewal application before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and it is not known as to whether the said application is still pending or not.
Although in the counter affidavit it has been stated about the reasons for rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner, but in view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed of an alternative remedy by challenging the rejection of renewal application before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, any observation made with respect to the same may prejudice the case of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ application, which is according disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue the application before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, as indicated above, if the same is still pending.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ application seeking stay on gazette notice for mining lease resettlement should be entertained when an alternative remedy exists.
Ranjit Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
