Smt Pushpa Gouri Vyas Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2052 of 2020

Smt. Pushpa Gouri Vyas, aged about 100 years, Wife of Late Chhotalal G. Vyas, Resident of Pushpanjali, 43/A, I.C. Road, Contractors’ Area, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶4

… … Petitioner Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶7

3.Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan at Sekarikella, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶8

4.District Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶9

5.Assistant Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

with

¶12

W.P. (C) No. 2064 of 2020

¶13

Smt. Pushpa Gouri Vyas, aged about 100 years, Wife of Late Chhotalal G. Vyas, Resident of Pushpanjali, 43/A, I.C. Road, Contractors’ Area, P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶14

… … Petitioner Versus

¶15

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶16

2.The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶17

3.Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella Kharsawan at Sekarikella, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶18

4.District Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶19

5.Assistant Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan, P.O. and P.S. Seraikella, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶20

… … Respondents

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG

¶24

¶25

Order No. 06 : Dated 14^th August, 2025 Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

¶26

1 -

¶27

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

¶28

1. Since common issues are involved in both the writ petitions, therefore, vide order dated 23.11.2020, both the writ petitions have been directed to be tagged together for analogous hearing.

¶29

Prayer in WPC No. 2052 of 2020

¶30

2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the letter No.285/M, dated 19.5.20(Annexure-4) issued by Assistant District Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan (Respondent No.5 hereto), whereby and where under he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,49,173/ being the dues towards Dead Rent in respect of Quartz and Quartzite mineral situated at village Darimachh in the district of Seraikella Kharsawan having an area of 19,632 Hectares.

¶31

Prayer in WPC No. 2064 of 2020

¶32

3. The petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the letter No.293/M, dated 27.5.20(Annexure-7) issued by District Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan (Respondent No.4 hereto), whereby and where under he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 95,59,704/ being the mining dues in respect of mining lease at Mouza Kashidih, Khelarisai, Teligora, Arwan having an area of 43.11 Hectares for the mining of Kynite mineral for the period up to 31.3.2020 pay within 60 days in failure thereof, necessary action shall be taken under the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988.

¶33

2 -

¶34

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

¶35

Factual aspect :

¶36

4. Since common facts are involved in both the writ petitions, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the factual aspect involved in WPC No. 2052 of 2020 is referred as under:

¶37

5. The petitioner’s husband, Late husband Chhota lal G. Vyas, had applied for mining lease for Quartz, Quartzite, BHQ and Soap Stone and a lease was executed between the State Government on one part and Late Chhota Lal G. Vyas on other part on dated 25.6.1978. This lease was for 10 years in respect of Village Daraimachh having an area of 19.632 Hectares of land in the district of Seraikella Kharsawan earlier known as District Singhbhum. It is stated that in Part-IX of the lease deed, which is a general provision, particularly their clause (4) of this part, which states about the failure to fulfill the terms of lease due to Force Majeure . The expression Force Majeure mean an Act of God, War, Insurrection, Riot, Civil Commotion, Stall, Tidal wave, Flood, Lightning, Explosion, Fire and any other happening which the lessee could not reasonably prevent or control. The said Late Chhotalal G. Vyas during the existence of mining lease died on 4.8.2001 and due to his illness all the mining activities were stopped and there was no mining. The petitioner received a letter from Assistant Mining Officer (Respondent No.5) being letter No. 1249, dated 2.5.12 whereby the Respondent No.5 has informed the petitioner that the previous lease stood in the name of her late husband Chhotalal G. Vyas and she has been made successor that and by filing the renewal application, they have possessed the entire area, therefore, up to March, 2012 there is due of

¶38

3 -

¶39

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

¶40

Rs.65,842/= being the amount of dead rent and she was directed to pay Rs.65,842/ within fifteen days and she was further asked to produce certain papers for the renewal of mining lease.

¶41

6. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no renewal of lease by any transfer of lease as per the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, but by letter No.1259, dated 9.6.16 the Assistant Mining Officer (Respondent No.5) directed the petitioner to pay 2% of the royalty and 1/3rd of the same in National Mineral Exploration Trust Fund and District Mineral Foundation Trust, Seraikella respectively. Vide letter dated 18.1.16 being the letter No.124, Assistant Mining Officer (Respondent No.5), directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 15,880/= which was raised on the basis of audit Objection being the amount of dead rent and interest thereon and directed the petitioner to pay within 15 days from the receipt of the letter. 7. The Petitioner states that on receipt of letter the petitioner paid Rs. 16,000/= by Pay Order issued by the Singhbhum District Central Cooperative bank Limited dated 28.4.16. Thereafter by letter No.285, dated 19.5.20 Assistant Mining Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan demanded Rs.13,49,173/ being the dues of Quartz/Quartzite mineral payable upto 31.3.20 and in failure, certificate proceeding will be initiated against the petitioner. 8. It is stated that earlier demand as contained in letter No.211, dated 17.3.20 amounting to Rs. 13,49,173/ as raised by the District Mining Officer (RespondentNo.4) is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶42

4 -

¶43

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

¶44

9. It is further stated that since the Petitioner's husband had died in August, 2001 and thereafter there was no mining in the area and complying part-IX, specially clause(4) being the case of Force Majeure the husband of the petitioner was not liable to pay any dead rent on the land. It is further case of the petitioner that before raising any demand no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and it will transpire that the petitioner had already paid Rs.16,000/= as per Annexure-3 and no detail has been given to the petitioner as to how they have calculated the amount. In absence of any calculation and any notice before raising the demand and in absence of detail, such demand is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶45

10. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case at length.

¶46

11. However, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the writ petitioner even though was afforded opportunity to represent her case before the authority by serving notice but she has chosen not to appear, as such it is not a case where the plea of violation of principle of natural justice is said to be taken as defence. Therefore, submission has been made that the writ petitions may not be entertained in view of the fact that two alternative by way of appeal and revision is available for the petitioner.

¶47

12. Upon this, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.

¶48

5 -

¶49

2025:JHHC:23744-DB

¶50

13. Considering the aforesaid, both the writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioner(s) to avail the alternative remedy of appeal/revision for redressal of grievance.

¶51

14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶52

15. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶53

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶54

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶55

Alankar/

¶56

A.F.R.