M/S Jai Bajrangbali Construction, through Its Partner Sagorika Yadav, Vs State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:18449-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P(C) No. 1269 of 2025

M/s. Jai Bajrangbali Construction, through its partner Sagorika Yadav, aged about- 42 years, wife of Swapan Kumar Yadav, resident Vill.Barmasia, P.O- Tilaki, P.S.- Bindapathar, District-Jamtara.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Commissioner of Mines Ranchi having its office at Nepal House P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District. Ranchi.

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O., P.S., and District Jamtara.

¶9

District Mining Officer Jamtara, P.O, P.S. and District Jamtara.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Roy, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III

¶14

¶15

04/Dated: 08.07.2025

¶16

In this Writ petition the petitioner has challenged Annexure-10 proceeding issued by the District Mining Officer on 01.10.2018 communicating the order dt. 28.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara rejecting petitioner’s application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone over an area of 3.86 acres of land in Mouza Bandarpahari.

¶17

According to the petitioner, copy of the said order dt. 28.09.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara was never communicated to the petitioner. This allegation levelled by the petitioner in para-23 of the Writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them.

¶18

-1 of 4-

¶19

2025:JHHC:18449-DB

¶20

Be that as it may, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner by way of a Revision before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi (2^nd respondent).

¶21

The said Revision was also dismissed on 27.02.2024 by Annexure-11.

¶22

In the order passed by the Mines Commissioner the reason for rejecting the petitioner ‘s application for grant of fresh mining lease is on the ground that the applied area is recorded as ‘ Pahari’ in the Khatiyan and as per JMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2017, no mining activities are allowed over such land.

¶23

Similar issue arose for consideration before this Bench in W.P.(C) No. 3351 of 2019 tilted “M/s Shri Shyam Kripa Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” .

¶24

In that case also similar plea was raised by the respondents therein. In the order dt. 18.06.2025 passed in the said Writ petition, following is recorded:

¶25

“19. The communication dated 19.01.2019 of the District Mining Officer, Ranchi states that according to the letter of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board dated 07.12.2018, there are mountains in the area and the mining activity will affect them and with a view to protect the mountains, the mining leases cannot be granted.

¶26

20. This Court, after hearing the parties on 17.06.2025, asked the counsel for the State Government to file a sworn affidavit that no mining has been permitted in the State of Jharkhand in any mountainous region.

¶27

21. Today, the counsel for the State, on oral instruction from the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of

¶28

-2 of 4-

¶29

2025:JHHC:18449-DB

¶30

Jharkhand, Ranchi, states that there is no prohibition for grant of mining lease in mountainous region.

¶31

22. Thus, it is clear that the State Government had been granting in the past mining leases in the mountainous regions also and even in the very case of the petitioner when he applied for the mining lease on 13.04.2016, the Circle Officer, Namkum, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi, the Assistant Mining Officer, Ranchi, the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Ranchi and even the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had granted requisite permission as set out above.

¶32

23. It is shocking that a false reason has been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in his proceeding dated 11.01.2019, which order/proceeding has never been furnished to the petitioner.

¶33

24. More importantly, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the State of Jharkhand itself had issued a notification as contained in Memo No. 1080/M dated 16.06.2021 reserving the mining lease area to be allotted in favour of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

¶34

25. This conduct of the respondents itself belies their stand that there is a prohibition for issuance of mining leases in mountainous region.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶35

The said Writ petition was allowed with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to the petitioner therein and the respondents were directed to execute lease deed pursuant to sanction letter dt. 05.09.2017 granted in favour of the petitioner within six weeks after setting aside the order dt. 11.01.2019 of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as the consequent communication dt. 19.01.2019 of the District Mining Officer, Ranchi.

¶36

Having regard to the fact that the State Government, in the said Writ petition, in spite of being asked to file a sworn affidavit that no mining has been permitted in the State of Jharkhand in any mountainous region, did not

¶37

-3 of 4-

¶38

2025:JHHC:18449-DB

¶39

file any such sworn affidavit to that effect, and instead their counsel stated that there is no prohibition for grant of mining lease in mountainous region, the reason given by the Mines Commissioner in his order dt. 27.02.2024 cannot be accepted.

¶40

Though in the counter affidavit the stand is taken that as per Rule 9(1)(Ka) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, no mining lease can be granted over Pahari land, perusal of the Rule shows that there is no such prohibition therein.

¶41

So, it has to be held that the orders passed in the instant case by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 28.09.2018 as well as communication dt. 01.10.2018 of the said order by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara and the consequential revisional order in Revision Case No. 94 of 2018 dt. 27.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Mines, Ranchi deserve to be set aside, and they are accordingly, set aside. This Writ petition is allowed. 12. Subject to the petitioner fulfilling all other formalities required for grant of such mining lease, the respondents shall proceed in the matter and grant the mining lease to the petitioner in respect of the applied area. This exercise shall be completed within two months.

¶42

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

¶43

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶44

APK/VK

¶45

-4 of 4-

M/S Jai Bajrangbali Construction, through Its Partner Sagorika Yadav, v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jai Bajrangbali Construction, through Its Partner Sagorika Yadav, v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Hindalco Industries Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Rahul Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Deptt of Industries Mines and Geology

MD Javed Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sagarika Das Vs the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Jayant Shekhar Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ajit Kumar Deo

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pathak