M/S Steel Authority of India Limited through Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.96 of 2024

-----

M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P.O. Lodhi Road, P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 and having one of its Unit known as Jharkhand Group of Mines, Bokaro Steel Plant having local office at Ispat Bhawan, at Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 834002, through Rajesh Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Sri B. B. Sinha, resident of Sector IVD, 6068, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶4

… … Petitioner/Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa P.S. Jagarnathpur District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶6

The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa P.S. Jagarnathpur District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Union Of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, P.O. Shashtri Bhawan, P.S. Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶8

The District Mining Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand).

¶9

… … Respondents/Opposite Parties

¶10

¶11

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶12

¶13

For the Appellant : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For the UOI : Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C. ------

¶14

Order No. 02 / Dated 11^th November, 2024

¶15

1. The present review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.7292 of 2023 only to the extent that the mines product which is involved in the present lis is Dolomite which, according to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, has subsequently been declared to be a minor mineral.

¶16

1

¶17

2. As such, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the revision will lie under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (amended in the year 2017). However, due to inadvertence, the reference of Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has been made at the time when the writ petition was disposed of on 16.07.2024.

¶18

3. Learned counsel appearing for the review petition, in the light of the above, has submitted that the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.7292 of 2023 needs to be reviewed.

¶19

4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II appearing for the State, is having no objection to such contention.

¶20

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

6. The mineral Dolomite is involved in the present lis which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Dolomite has been brought under the fold of minor mineral. Hence, there is separate set of rules having been formulated by the State of Jharkhand as Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (amended in the year 2017) which is having with the provision of revision.

¶22

7. But it appears from the order dated 16.07.2024 that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, has made submission that in the light of the provision as contained under Section 30 of the

¶23

2

¶24

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the writ petition may be disposed of in order to pursue the remedy as provided thereunder.

¶25

8. But, considering the fact that the Dolomite has been brought under the fold of minor mineral, hence, the provision as contained under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 will be applicable which contains a separate provision in order to avail the remedy of revision as under Rule 62 thereof.

¶26

9. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.7292 of 2023 is to be reviewed.

¶27

10. Accordingly, the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.7292 of 2023 is hereby reviewed and being replaced with liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision as provided under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (amended in the year 2017).

¶28

11. Accordingly, the present review petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶31

Birendra/

¶32

3

M/S Steel Authority of India Limited through Rajesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Steel Authority of India Limited through Rajesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radheshyam Badaik Vs the Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Madhu Kora Alias Madhu Korah Alias Madhu Koda Vs Union Of India Through Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors.

Sundip Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moola Satyanarayan Reddy Vs State of Jharkhand