M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari Vs the State of Jahrkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 117 of 2024

M/s. SSP Enterprises

..... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Ranchi.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum.

¶8

District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. 4. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ...... Respondents

¶9

-----CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishanu Ray, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C. to A.G.

¶11

05/14.03.2024 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G.

¶12

At the outset in view of the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Director of Mines, State of Jharkhand is permitted to be added as respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to do the needful.

¶13

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the State Government to treat the lease deed for renewal of mining lease executed between the State Government and the petitioner on 17.03.2016 to be effective from the date of its execution and not from 10.02.2014 i.e. the date on which the first grant had expired and consequently get the lease deed rectified to that extent.

¶14

It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that similar matters have already been disposed of in W.P.(C) No.5363 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.5758 of 2023 and pursuant to those orders necessary steps have been taken by the District Mining Officer permitting those petitioners to work in the mines for the period which was delayed on account of the execution of the agreement.

¶15

Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. has also

¶16

-2-

¶17

been heard.

¶18

The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner is a partnership firm and it was granted a mining lease of building stone in Mauza Iligara under Thana No.557 in the district of West Singhbhum over government land bearing plot no.1664 under Khata No.2 having an area of 4.49 acres for a period of 10 years from 10.02.2004 to 09.02.2014. The petitioner accordingly worked the mines with all requisite clearances and applied for a renewal of the lease within time in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and consequent to the said application for renewal the petitioner was directed to furnish certain documents with respect to the renewal of the lease. Though the petitioner had submitted several documents as required but in the meantime its application for renewal had become time barred and was accordingly rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 21.09.2015 against which the petitioner preferred a revision application in Revision Case No.159 of 2015 which was allowed by the Mines Commissioner on 03.11.2015. Finally after the grant of environment clearance and submission of all the documents vide letter dated 16.02.2016 the renewal application of the petitioner was accepted and thereafter a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the State on 17.03.2016 renewing the lease from 10.02.2014 to 09.02.2024.

¶19

It is, therefore, grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to work in the mines for the period in which the delay had occurred in executing the lease deed. In this context reference has been made to the case of M/s Dhan Laxmi Stone Works Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.5758 of 2023 in which the following order was passed :-

¶20

“8. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent no.4 within a period of one week along with a copy of this order as well as the copy of the writ petition, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of such

¶21

-3-

¶22

representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to this writ petitioner.”

¶23

A similar order was passed in W.P.(C) No.5363 of 2022 on 14.3.2023 and consequent to the order passed by this Court, a positive decision has been taken with respect to the said petitioners which have also been brought on record by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts therefore, this writ application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent nos. 2, 3 and newly added respondent no.4 within a period of 1 week along with a copy of this order as well as a copy of the writ application and the concerned respondents noted above shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of such representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and by also taking into consideration the permission granted in the case of other petitioners who had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5363 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.5758 of 2023.

¶25

Pending interlocutory application also stands closed.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶27

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶28

Shamim/-

M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari v. the State of Jahrkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari v. the State of Jahrkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S MD Zafar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Health Education and Family Welfare Department

M/S MD Zafar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Health Education and Family Welfare Department

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Chief Secretory

M/S Ssp Enterprises Represented Thro One of Its Partners Pradeep Kumar Pasari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

M/S N K Enterprises Thro Its Proprietor Lal Chandra Kishore Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govind Pramanik Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.