Disposed

Ms Gausia Stone through Its Partner MD Subhan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2021WPC/5973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions challenging the validity of a rule regarding rejection of mining leases and the arbitrariness of the revisional authority. The court held that due to subsequent amendments, the revisional authority must pass fresh orders considering the lenient provision permitting reconsideration of rejected applications.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, preferably within three months, ensuring an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Ms Gausia Stone through Its Partner MD Subhan Ansari Vs… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5888 of 2019

¶3

With

¶4

I.A.No.5241 of 2020

¶5

¶6

M/s Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines, a Partnership firm, having its office at Mouza-Mahachho, P.O. Bandiabad, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih-815316 through its Partner, namely Vijay Yadav , aged about 38 years, son of Sri Chintamani Yadav, resident of village Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma-825410 (Jharkhand) ……… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶9

2. The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶10

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih

¶11

4. The District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih

¶12

5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih ………. Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

W.P.(C) No.5973 of 2019

¶15

With

¶16

I.A.No.5242 of 2020

¶17

¶18

M/s Gausia Stone, a Partnership firm, having its office at MouzaMadhopur, P.O. Hemrodih P.S. Dhanwar, District Giridih825412, through its Partner, namely Md. Subhan Ansari, aged about 34 years, son of Yusuf Miyan, resident of village Madhopur, P.O. Hemrodih P.S. Dhanwar, District Giridih-825412 (Jharkhand) ……… Petitioner

¶19

¶20

Versus

¶21

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶22

2. The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶23

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih

¶24

4. The District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih

¶25

5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih ………. Respondents

¶26

With

¶27

W.P.(C) No.6007 of 2019 With

¶28

I.A.No.5243 of 2020

¶29

¶30

1. Navin Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Nandlal Yadav, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma

¶31

2. Braj Bhushan Yadav, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Uma Shankar Yadav, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma

¶32

3. Vinod Yadav, aged about 46 years, son of Late Budhan Yadav, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma

¶33

4. Babulal Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Late Jagdish Yadav, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma

¶34

5. Yugal Kishore Mehta, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Nunman Mehta, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma

¶35

¶36

6. Vijay Mistri, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Jagdish Mistri, resident of village Panchgawan, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma ……… Petitioners

¶37

Versus

¶38

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002

¶39

2. The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002

¶40

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih District Giridih

¶41

4. The District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih District Giridih

¶42

5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih District Giridih ………. Respondents

¶43

¶44

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶45

--------For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. ---

¶46

10/10.09.2021 Matters have been heard through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

¶47

2. The instant writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring that Rule-(9)(i)(e) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which has been inserted by the Amendment carried out vide notification

¶48

¶49

dated 22.02.2017 to the extent in the said Rule, provisions have been made for ‘deemed rejection of the application for grant of mining lease’ in such cases where Environmental Clearance Certificate has not been obtained within 180 days from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and in alternative for issuance of direction in the nature of declaration declaring that time limit prescribed in Rule-9(i)(e) inserted in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 vide Amendment Notification dated 22.02.2017 is directory in nature and in appropriate cases where sufficient cause is shown, period of submission of Environmental Clearance Certificate as prescribed under the said Rule may be extended by the Competent Authority, and provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 would also be applicable for condonation of delay. Further, for a direction of quashing of the order dated 16.09.2019 and 27.09.2019 passed by the respondent no.2, wherein revision applications filed by the petitioners under Section 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted Environmental Clearance Certificate within the period of 180 days as per Rule-9(i)(e) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

¶50

3. The case of the petitioners as per the pleading made in the writ petitions is pertaining to rejection of application for grant of

¶51

¶52

lease to the petitioners in respect of minor minerals, i.e., stone in the district of Giridih on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit Environmental Clearance Certificate within the period of 180 days from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) in pursuance to the provision as contained under Rule9(i)(e) inserted in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.M.M.C.’ Rules, 2004) vide notification dated 22.02.2017 i.e., the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

¶53

4. In the pretext of rejection of claim of the petitioners in pursuance to Rule-9(i)(e) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the vires of the aforesaid provision, has been questioned by the petitioners invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶54

Apart from that, issue has also been raised that in similar circumstances, the revisional authority has interfered with the order of rejection passed by the original authority on the ground of no fault on the part of litigants in those cases by remitting the matter before the original authority to take decision afresh and to substantiate the same, the order passed by the Mines Commissioner as has been appended to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners and therefore, submission has been made that the Mines Commissioner has acted in a very highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner and has passed the order by adopting pick and choose policy since on

¶55

¶56

the one hand, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected, while on the other hand, by deviating from the aforesaid provision of Rule, interference has been made in the order of rejection passed by the original authority by remitting it for passing order afresh, even though, the ground agitated before the Mines Commissioner is exactly similar as that of the ground of the petitioners.

¶57

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has, however, submitted by referring to interlocutory application being I.A. No.5241 of 2020 stating therein the subsequent development of facts to the effect that the respondent State of Jharkhand has again come out with the amendment in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 in exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, whereby and whereunder, a new provision has been inserted as under Rule 9(1)(anga), by which, the application which has been rejected in terms of the provision of the said Rule as contained in the amended Rule of the Year, 2020 on the ground of non-submission of the Environmental Clearance Certificate within the period of 180 days, it has been provided for its reconsideration by the competent authority on its merit and therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the subsequent amendment of the Year, 2020, the petitioners are not pressing the issue of vires rather they are confining their

¶58

¶59

prayers for consideration of the order of rejection by the revisional authority afresh in pursuance to the provision of Rule 9(i)(anga) by virtue of the amended provision of the Rule, 2020.

¶60

He has also agitated the issue about adopting the pick and choose policy by the Mines Commissioner and to buttress his argument, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards the several orders passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case Nos.72 of 2018, 73 of 2018, 74 of 2018, 75 of 2018 and 76 of 2018 disposed of on 16.09.2019 and 16.12.2019.

¶61

He submits by referring to the ground of interference made by the revisional authority, i.e., Mines Commissioner that, even in those cases attributable error was committed on the part of the petitioners and instead of rejecting the same, he came to conclusion that the litigants cannot be allowed to suffer and in that view of the matter, he has remitted the matter before the original authority for consideration of the issue afresh, as such, it is now being claimed by the petitioners that the petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment on the basis of the fact that on similar ground, the Mines Commissioner, in exercise of revisional power, has interfered with the order passed by the original authority and remitted the matter before it for fresh consideration of the lis coupled with the fact that the due amendment has been inserted as under amended Act incorporated in the Year, 2020 .

¶62

¶63

6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand is not in a position to dispute the order passed by the revisional authority as appended to the said petition.

¶64

However, he has fairly submitted that in view of the new amendment incorporated in the Year, 2020, the case of the petitioners is required to be considered afresh.

¶65

7. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and considering the fact that the petitioners have confined their prayers only with respect to the prayer made in the interlocutory application, this Court is not passing any order pertaining to the vires of provision, which is the prayer made in the writ petitions.

¶66

8. So far as the prayer made in the interlocutory applications is concerned, this Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the Law has been amended in the Year, 2020 keeping the fact into consideration about the decision of the original authority negating the claim of the party on the ground of pending applications before the competent authority empowered to issue Environmental Clearance Certificate for its consideration afresh by the competent authority on its own merit as also considering the fact that the Mines Commissioner who has passed the order dated 16.09.2019 and 16.12.2019 in Revision Case Nos.72 of 2018, 73 of 2018, 74 of 2018, 75 of 2018 and 76 of 2018, even though, he being the same authority, has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the same very ground by following the provision of Rule

¶67

¶68

9(i)(e) of the Rules, 2004 passed in Revision Case Nos.08 of 2019, 01 of 2019 and 103 of 2018, the Mines Commissioner, has interfered with the order, even though, by deviating from the statutory provision as contained under Rule 9(i)(e), is of the view that said action of the Mines Commissioner cannot be appreciated.

¶69

9. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter, deems it fit and proper to direct the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with Law preferably within the period of three months’ from the date of production/receipt of copy of the order.

¶70

10. Needless to say that while passing such order, an adequate opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the concerned parties.

¶71

11. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶72

12. In consequent thereto, I.A.Nos.5241 of 2020, 5242 of 2020 and 5243 of 2020 also stand disposed of.

¶73

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶74

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶75

Rohit/-A.F.R.

Ms Gausia Stone through Its Partner MD Subhan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Gausia Stone through Its Partner MD Subhan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

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 Hindustan Auto Agency through One of Its Partner Gopal Kumar Lodha Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Chief Executive Officer

Shakuntala Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand Vs MD Mustafa

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines through Its Partner Vijay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Navin Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology