Ali Reza Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2109 of 2023

Ali Reza, aged about 49 years, son of Gulam Mustafa, resident of Gangadda, Radhipur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal House, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Dordanda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

2.Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its Office at Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶7

3.District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its Office at Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶8

. … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

¶13

¶14

Order No. 06 : Dated 08^th September, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

¶15

1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the

¶16

Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s):

¶17

(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and / or direction(s) for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 431/M dated 04.03.2023 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder a demand of Rs.6,00,91,281/-towards royalty, Rs.1,80,27,384/towards DMFT, Rs.6,00,913/- towards Environmental Cess and Rs.12,01,286/- towards Income Tax has been raised and further Rs.2,000/- penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Rule 42(1) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

¶18

2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of mining and has been granted mining leases primarily

¶19

1 -

¶20

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

¶21

for stone quarry at Plot Nos. 6,7 and 237/P, area 4.29 acres mouza Sundarpahari, Maheshpur in the district of Pakur. The mining lease for the said stone quarry was granted on 10.02.2006 till 09.02.2011.

¶22

3. The petitioner made a renewal application for extension of mining lease on 18.12.2010, which was forwarded by the authority concerned and the District Mining Officer, Pakur vide letter dated 13.12.2017 granted approval for renewal of mining for the said mining lease area for the period 10.02.2011 to 31.03.2020. Accordingly, a supplementary lease deed was entered between the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and the petitioner on 16.01.2018.

¶23

4. Thereafter, consent to operate was granted to the petitioner on 20.04.2018. Pursuant thereto a supplementary lease deed was executed on 20.12.2020 for extension of mining lease till 31.03.2022 for the said mining lease area. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that before expiry of the mining lease of the petitioner on 31.03.2022, the petitioner removed all the machines and no mining activities was carried out by the petitioner after the expiry of the mining lease i.e., 31.03.2022 but in spite of that an order was passed on 04.03.2023 under the signature of District Mining Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder a demand of Rs.6,00,91,281/towards royalty, Rs.1,80,27,384/towards DMFT, Rs.6,00,913/towards Environmental Cess and Rs.12,01,286/- towards Income Tax has been raised and

¶24

2 -

¶25

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

¶26

further Rs.2,000/- penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Rule 42(1) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 mainly on two grounds. The first ground has been taken that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before imposing the penalty and raising demand. Further ground has been taken that the District Mining Officer, has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 7. It has further been submitted by referring to order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein both the grounds has been taken into consideration while granting ad interim relief in favour of petitioner by staying all further proceedings in pursuant to order dated 04.03.2023 [impugned order].

¶28

8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State has come out with notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025 issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 conferring power upon the different authorities based upon the territorial jurisdiction.

¶29

3 -

¶30

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

¶31

9. It has been submitted that assessment which has been made in exercise of power conferred under Section 42(1) JMMC Rules, 2004 is in furtherance of the assessment as provided under the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957. Hence the conferment of power by the State Government to look into the issues pertaining either to violation of principles of natural justice or territorial jurisdiction are to be dealt with by the officers in whose favour power has been conferred.

¶32

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the rival submissions made on their behalf.

¶33

11. Admitted case herein as per the submission made by learned State counsel that the jurisdiction was not available to the District Mining Officer, Pakur prior to issuance of notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025.

¶34

12. One of the grounds for challenge has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the DMO, Pakur was having no jurisdiction the day when the impugned demand has been raised in exercise of power conferred under Rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017.

¶35

13. But after issuance of notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025, the power has been conferred upon the officers depending upon the territorial jurisdiction.

¶36

4 -

¶37

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

¶38

14. For ready reference, relevant portion of the notification is quoted as under:

¶39

अधधसूचना 6 मई , 2025

¶40

संख्या - ख०धन० ( नीधि )-03/2025-1072/ एम० , खानएवंखधनज ( धवकासएवं धवधनयमन ) अधधधनयम , 1957 यथा संशोधधि की धारा 26 (2) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करिे हुए खान एवं खधनज ( धवकास एवं धवधनयमन ) अधधधनयम , 1957 यथा संशोधधि की धारा 21 (3), 21 (4) एवं 21(5) के प्रयोजनाथथउि धाराओंकेिहि प्रदि शक्तियोका प्रयोग करनेका अधधकार धनम्ांधकिपदाधधकाररयोंकोप्रत्यायोधजिधकयाजािाहै :-

¶41

क्रमांक	पदाधधकाररयों का पदनाम	क्षेत्राधधकार
1	धनदेशक,खान	सम्पूर्थ झारखण्ड
2	अपर धनदेशक,खान,रांची	सम्पूर्थ झारखण्ड
3	उप धनदेशक,खान	अपने क्षेत्राधधकार के अन्तगथि
4.	धजला/सहायक खनन पदाधधकारी	अपने क्षेत्राधधकार के अन्तगथि

¶42

15. The ground of violation of principles of natural justice is another plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, which has also been taken note in order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶43

16. We are of the view that if there is lack of jurisdiction of the authority who passed the impugned order, then the question of natural justice cannot be allowed to be considered by such authority who is having no jurisdiction at the relevant period of time. However, in view of notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025, the power has been conferred upon

¶44

5 -

¶45

2025:JHHC:27200-DB

¶46

the authority, herein the District Mining Officer, Pakur and as such the remedy is already available to the petitioner in view of notification dated 6^th May, 2025 where the ground of violation of principles of natural justice can also be agitated.

¶47

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶48

18. This Court in view of the aforesaid is of the view, based upon the admission of the learned counsel for the State, that now the jurisdiction has been conferred upon the District Mining Officer, Pakur, which itself clarifies that the day when the impugned order was passed, the District Mining Officer was having no jurisdiction.

¶49

19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted before the competent authority, i.e., District Mining Officer, Pakur to pass order afresh.

¶50

20. In view thereof the District Mining Officer, Pakur is directed to issue notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner may raise all points by filing reply within a period of four weeks thereafter. After filing of such reply the DMO, Pakur shall pass reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶51