Disposed¶27

Smt. Deoki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Aug 2025WPC/1183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deoki Devi v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No. 1183 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Order No.05 dated 19.08.2025, Division Bench (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. and Arun Kumar Rai, J.). Disposed of with liberty to appeal; alternate remedy (appeal/revision) upheld as bar; no merits decided. Keywords: Article 226, withdrawal with liberty, alternative remedy, District Mining Officer Dhanbad, penalty and interest for brick year 2018-19, Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 Rule 65, Section 15(2) MMDR Act 1957, environment clearance, consent to operate, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with law; the writ petition was withdrawn/disposed of without any adjudication on the merits of the penalty order or the validity of Rule 65. ¶27

Smt. Deoki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:24278-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1183 of 2025

¶3

-----

¶4

Smt. Deoki Devi, aged about 70 years, Wife of R. N. Agarwal, resident of At Mukharjee Road, P.O. and P.S. – Hirapur, DistrictDhnbad … … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi

¶8

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner :Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.

¶13

¶14

Order No.05 / Dated 19^th August, 2025

¶15

1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

¶16

Constitution of India, issues have been involved in the instant writ petition, for the sake of convenience, relief(s) is quoted hereunder :-

¶17

(i) In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for grant of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the letter No. 1301, dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-6) issued by District Mining Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder, District Mining Officer has been pleased to impose penalty of Rs. 5,48,127/- and interest from 23.02.2019 to 31.05.2024 amounting to Rs. 6,90,189/- being total amount of Rs. 12,38,316/- for the brick year 201819 in violation of Rule 4, 30, 31, 32 and 34(A)(1), 34(I) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule and the petitioner manufactured about 6,70,000 bricks without obtaining Environment Clearance and Consent to Operate from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being illegal, arbitrary and biased against the petitioner.

¶18

AND

¶19

Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for a declaration that Rule 65 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral

¶20

Page 1

¶21

2025:JHHC:24278-DB

¶22

Concession Rules 2004 is ultra vires to Section 15(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as the Central Government has not delegated the power to the State Government to frame any rule providing for a forum of appeal.

¶23

AND

¶24

For grant of any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled with.

¶25

2. Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued in the case at length, however, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned A.G. has submitted that the writ petitioner even though has been afforded an opportunity to represent his case before the authority as per the notice dated 31.05.2023, but he has chosen not to appear, as such, it is not a case where the plea of principle of natural justice is said to be taken as defense. Hence, the writ petition may not be entertained in view of the fact that there are two alternate remedies by way of appeal as well as revision is available.

¶26

3. Upon this, Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petition with a liberty to approach the appellate forum.

¶27

4. Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in accordance with law.

¶28

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶31

Umesh/Abhishek

¶32

Page 2

Smt. Deoki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Deoki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Sunil Kumar Puri Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

Ms Gautam Enterprises through Its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Smt Beena Pani Agrawal Vs the Union of India through the Joint Secretary Ministry of Mines

Ashok Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Zahiruddin Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

M/S Araanya Mines Private Limited Represented through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Mirtunjay Kumar Vs Union of India through Ministry of Coal