The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by Kohinoor Steel Private Limited seeking directions for grant of prospecting licenses. The petition was found infructuous due to a subsequent change in law, and the interim order was vacated.
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. 5059 of 2012
Kohinoor Steel Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16A, “Everest House”, 46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata- 700 071 through its Manager (Corporate Affairs), Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh son of Late Joydeb Ghosh . … … Petitioner
… … Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate ---
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“a. A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to provide to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 all the information, documents and clarifications sought by the letters dated 1st November 2010 and 30th December 2010 being Annexure ‘13’ and ‘16’ hereto. b. A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to act in terms of the letters written by the petitioner dated 11th November 2010 and 1st December 2010 being Annexures ‘11’, ‘12’ and ‘14’ hereto. C. A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to forward to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and to recommend for grant of prospecting licence the area of 71.914 hectares as described in the letters, Topo Sheets and plans written and forwarded by the petitioner to the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 12th January 2011, 7th June 2011, 15th June 2011 and 10th August 2011 being Annexures ’17, ‘18’, ‘19’ and ‘20’ hereto and as more fully and particularly described in paragraph 24 and in Annexure ‘10’ hereof.
(d) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents and each of them and/or their
2
men, servants and agents to act in terms of the letter dated 29th November 2011, 5th June 2012 and 11th July 2012 written by the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa, to the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand being Annexure ‘22’, ‘27’ and ‘29’ hereto.
(e) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to forward to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and to recommend for grant of prospecting license of the areas as described in the letters of the Assistant District Mining Officer, Chaibasa dated 5th June 2012 and/or in the typographical map and/or plan annexed thereto and 11th July 2012 being Annexures 27 and 29 hereto;
(F) Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to act in terms of the letters and/or recommendations of the District Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa dated 5th June 2012 and 11th July 2012 being Annexures 27 and 29 hereto.
G. A writ of and /or in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the Respondents and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents from allotting the said ‘Barabaljori’ Block and/or the area of 71.914 hectares recommend for grant of prospecting licence to the petitioner as described in the letters, Topo Sheets and plans written and forwarded by the petitioner to the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 12th January 2011, 7th June 2011, 15th June 2011 and 10th August 2011 being Annexures ‘17’, ‘18’, ‘19’ and ‘20’ hereto and as more fully and particularly described in paragraph 24 and in Annexure ‘10’ hereof.
H. A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari do issue commanding the respondents and each of them and/or their men, servants and agents to certify and produce all relevant documents before this Hon’ble Court so that conscionable justice may be done upon perusal thereto.”
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on account of subsequent change of law, the present petition has become infructuous.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is still maintainable in view of the subsequent change of law making the prayer infructuous.
Kohinoor Steel Private Limited
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology
District Mining Officer, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand
Union of India
The Under Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India
The Director, Ministry of Mines, Government of India
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
