Dismissed

Jai Prakash Chourasia v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Feb 2021WPC/3347/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction for extension of granite mining lease and adjustment of dead rent was dismissed. Court held it cannot adjudicate factual issues regarding time consumed for application and related matters that were not presented to the sanctioning authority. Petitioner directed to file fresh application.

What did the court decide?

None. Court refused to grant direction for lease extension beyond 20 years, relaxation of 8 years, or adjustment of dead rent. Petitioner directed to file fresh application before sanctioning authorit

Jai Prakash Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3347 of 2020

¶3

Jai Prakash Chourasia ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Director of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 5. The District Mining Officer, Deoghar ….. Respondents

¶9

----- CORAM

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----For the Petitioner: Mr. K. K. Ojha For the State: Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C to A.G

¶12

¶13

04/24.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶14

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed

¶15

out by the office are ignored.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to give extension of the period of mining lease of Granite, stone granted to the petitioner vide memo No. 63 dated 10.07.2020 by the respondent No.4 in terms of Rule 6(1) of Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 for the maximum period of 30 years in lieu of extended period of 20 years and also to give relaxation of eight years during which the matter of extension of mining lease remained sub-judice before the revisional authority and the sanctioning authority as there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner in pendency of the same. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to adjust the dead rent being paid by the petitioner towards future liability since the mining operation of the petitioner remained inoperative for about eight years without any lapse on his part.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The respondent No.4 while passing the order dated 08.07.2020 (issued vide memo No. 63 dated 10.07.2020) considered the petitioner’s case for extension of mining lease for Granite, stone and after appreciating the facts and law as well as keeping in view the observation made by the revisional authority

¶19

in the order dated 07.11.2017, ordered for extension of the said mining lease from 24.06.2002 to 23.06.2022. The said order of the respondent No.4 does not suggest that the issue with regard to the time consumed between filing of the application and extension of the mining lease was put forth on behalf of the petitioner before the said respondent so as to make any adjudication on the said issue. Since the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition i.e. the time consumed between filing of the application and extension of the mining lease and other related matters have not presented before the sanctioning authority (the respondent No.4), this Court cannot adjudicate the said factual issue in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, I am not inclined to pass any order on the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner is however at liberty to agitate the said issue before the respondent No.4 by preferring a fresh application, on receipt of which the said respondent shall take an appropriate informed decision expeditiously keeping in view that the period of mining lease of the petitioner is going to expire on 23.06.2022.

¶20

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶22

Satish/-

Jai Prakash Chourasia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Chourasia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Jai Bajrang Walee Stone Works through Its Proprietor Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhakat Enterprise through Its Proprietor Ajit Bhagat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kedarnath Lal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Shiva Protection Force P Ltd. through Its Managing Director Rajesh Nidhi Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dilip Prasad Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Basko Besra Vs the Jharkhand State Co. Operative Bank Limited through Its Chairman