Dismissed

Bansilal Katta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2023WPC/4825/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition challenged a demand letter for payment regarding unauthorized stone extraction, citing lack of enquiry and violation of natural justice. The Court dismissed the writ petition at the initial stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Deputy Director, Mines, Govt. of Jharkhand within 30 days.

Bansilal Katta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4825 of 2023

¶2

Bansilal Katta, aged about 69 years, son of Late Sugen Chand Katta, resident of Dhulian Road, Baliharpur, Pakur, P.O.-Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur (Jharkhand) ... ... ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi through its Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (Town), District-Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶7

The District Mining Officer, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (Town), District-Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶8

The Circle Officer, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (Town), DistrictPakur (Jharkhand). … … ... Respondents

¶9

--------- CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate

¶12

Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate

¶13

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondents: Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-III

¶15

¶16

02/Dated: 12.09.2023

¶17

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

¶18

passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1) By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed

¶21

for the following reliefs:-

¶22

“To quash the letter no. 935/M, dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure-1) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 52,57,450/- as against the unauthorized extraction of 3,02,500 cft. of stone charged @ Rs. 17.38 per cft, Rs. 21,41,700/- by way of royalty, Rs. 6,42,510/- as against DMFT, Rs. 12,100/- against Environmental Cess and Rs. 42,834/as against income tax, which is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any enquiry, without any show cause and thereby the sail letter is volatile of the Principles of natural Justice, Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.”

¶23

-2-

¶24

2) However, at the initial stage, it is brought to our notice that the order impugned, i.e., Annexure-1, is appealable before the Deputy Director, Mines, Government of Jharkhand, who is the Appellate Authority under Section 65 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

¶25

3) In that view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Director, Mines, Government of Jharkhand, within 30 days hence, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits.

¶26

4) There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶27

5) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

6) Urgent Certified copies as per rules.

¶29

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶30

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶31

Manoj/MM

Bansilal Katta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansilal Katta 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

Mrs Anupama Tyagi Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Federation Of Jharkhand Chamber Of Commerce And Industries Thr Secretary General Vinay Kr Agarwal Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training And Ors.

Software Freedom Law Center India through Authorised Representative Mamta Verma Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dharampal Satyapal Limited through Its Director Mr Pawan Kumar Goyal Vs the Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Adivasi Krishak Mahila Kalyan Parishad through Its Chairman Etwa Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S M J Engineering through Its Partner Mr Manoj Kumar Vs Damodar Valley Corporation