One Up Minerals and Infrastructure Private Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Anupam Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2436 of 2025

One Up Minerals & Infrastructure Private Limited, having its registered office at 603, 6th Floor, Panchwati Tower, Harmu Bye Pass Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi, through its Authorized Signatory, namely, Anupam Sinha, aged about 50 years, son of Late Suresh Prasad Sinha, resident of Qr. No.D/87, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines & Geology, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand).

¶7

The District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand).

¶8

… … Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

¶12

¶13

Order No. 28 : Dated 5^th December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

¶14

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, under Article

¶15

226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief(s):

¶16

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 385 dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-7) issued under Seal and Signature of District Mining Officer, Ramgarh wherein District Mining Officer,

¶17

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶18

Ramgarh has been pleased to quantify the penalty / fine of Rs. 27,55,291/- (for nine trucks) and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,77,647/- as balance penalty amount within the period of 15 days of the receipt of the order.

¶19

(b) Upon quashing of the order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure-7) further writ/s, order/s or direction/s may be issue upon the respondent to return the penalty amount of Rs. 13,77,647/-alongwith statutory interest @ 12% Per Annum, which has already been paid to the concerned department earlier.

¶20

(c) Further issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondent to take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance penalty amount of Rs. 13,77,647/- in light of order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh.”

¶21

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaging itself in business of producers, importers, exporters etc. 3. The petitioner purchased coal from Central Coalfields Limited under e-auction process time to time. One company, namely, M/s Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd. had placed

¶22

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶23

orders with the petitioner-company for sale of coal and the said coal was to be delivered to the plant of M/s Adhunik Alloys and Power Ltd., situated at Kandra, District-SaraikellaKharsawan.

¶24

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that nine trucks loaded with the coal were apprehended by the office-in-charge of Kuju Outpost and on 03.02.2013, the Mining Inspector, Ramgarh visited Kuju Outpost police station and verified documents available on truck relating to transport of coal.

¶25

5. Petitioner was served with an order contained in letter no. 227/khanan, Ramgarh dated 05.02.2013 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh, under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13,77,644/-(for 9 trucks) for allegedly transporting coal without transit permits(challans), and, therefore, penalty equivalent to the value of coal was imposed upon the petitioner with a direction to pay the same within two days.

¶26

6. Petitioner was coerced to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,77,644/- by way nine different demand drafts, all dated 06.02.2013. Thereafter, Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh, vide letter no. 239 dated 06.02.2013 issued „No Objection‟ for release of the vehicles and the goods.

¶27

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶28

7. Under the aforesaid circumstance the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2013 for quashing the letter no. 227 dated 05.02.2013 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh and to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,77,644/-.

¶29

8. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2013 was dismissed by order dated 05.08.2022, by learned single judge of this court observing that it will not be appropriate for this court to entertain this writ petition at this stage on the ground of availability of statutory appeal however granted to the writ petitioner to prefer appeal as provided under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules,2007.

¶30

9. The writ petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.08.2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2013, preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated 31.07.2023 and the order of demand contained in memo no. 227 dated 05.02.2013 was quashed and set aside holding that it should not have been quantified in terms of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the matter was remitted to the the Assistant Mining Officer for the purpose of quantification of penalty with respect to each truck in terms of Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer‟s Rules, 2007. The relevant part of the

¶31

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶32

judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022,

¶33

is quoted herein below-

¶34

“16.It is not in dispute that nine trucks of the appellant were intercepted without required challan and documents. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the aforesaid Rules of 2007, has submitted that at best penalty of Rs.5,000/- per truck could have been imposed in terms of Rule 8 and during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the penalty could be much more and even for each days’ default.

¶35

17 . In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents having been found to be referrable to the aforesaid Rules of 2007 and not to section 21(5) of the aforesaid Act of 1957, the quantification of penalty alleging illegal mining under section 21(5) of the aforesaid Act of 1957 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the quantum of penalty is required to be redetermined for each truck in terms of the aforesaid Rules of 2007.

¶36

18 . Therefore, the impugned demand in the writ petition contained in Memo No.227 dated 05.02.2013, whereby the penalty has been quantified in terms of section 21 (5) of the aforesaid Act of 1957, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Mining Officer for the purposes of quantification of penalty with respect to each truck in terms of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules of 2007.

¶37

19. The Assistant Mining Officer is directed to quantify the penalty/fine in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 2007 within a period of two months from today. Upon quantification, the excess amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, subject to verification of payment.

¶38

20. LPA No.616 of 2022 is allowed and, accordingly, writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.”

¶39

10. It is further case of the petitioner that he filed detailed

¶40

representation before the Assistant Mining Officer, Ramgarh, on 14.09.2023 followed by reminders/representations to take suitable action to quantify the penalty/fine in terms of the

¶41

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶42

provision of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer‟s Rules, 2007, as per order dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022 but no heed was given.

¶43

11. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.384 of 2025 for non-compliance of order dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022 and the same was heard and disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2025.

¶44

12. After filing the aforesaid Contempt petition, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, had issued an order contained in memo no. 385 dated 07.03.2025 wherein the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, had quantified the penalty/fine of Rs. 27,55,291/-(for nine trucks) and further directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,77,647/-as balance penalty amount within the period of 15 days of the receipt of the order.

¶45

13. The case of the writ petitioner is that contrary to the said specific direction while remitting the matter to quantify in terms of the provision of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer‟s Rules, 2007, the decision has been taken, as impugned, by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, dated 07.03.2025 on the basis of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage), Rules, 2017(herein after Rules of 2017).

¶46

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶47

14. Submission has been made that the Rules of 2017 admittedly has been brought in the month of February, 2018 and the day when the Coordinate Division Bench has passed the order, there was no whisper of applicability of Rules of 2017, but even then and ignoring the specific direction passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, the additional liability has been casted upon the writ petitioner.

¶48

15. This Court, taking note of these facts has called upon the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh who has passed the said order, as would be evident from order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this Court.

¶49

16. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Nishant Abhishek, District Mining Officer, Ramgarh appeared before the Court on 13.11.2025. He has admitted that the impugned order is contrary to the direction passed by this Court in LPA No. 616 of 2022.

¶50

17. It has been stated that the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh intends to re-visit order dated 07.03.2025 for the purpose of passing order in terms of order dated 31.07.2023 passed in LPA No. 616 of 2022.

¶51

18. This Court considered the conduct of the officer to be contemptuous, therefore notice was issued upon the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh as to why a proceeding under the Contempt‟s of Court Act be not initiated against him. For ready reference, order dated 13.11.2025 is quoted as under:

¶52

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶53

1. Mr. Nishant Abhishek, who is presently working as the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh is present in this Court.

¶54

2. I.A. No.15220 of 2025 filed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh in pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this Court is placed before this Court, for ready reference the said order is being referred herein:

¶55

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶56

The order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh is under challenge.

¶57

The specific case of the writ petitioner is that nine trucks have been found loaded with the coal and have been apprehended and upon mismatch in the value of goods mentioned in the bill, a notice of demand dated 04.02.2013 imposing penalty was issued.

¶58

The authority has initiated proceeding in the light of the provision as contained under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Liability of Rs.13,77,644/- has been casted upon the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has preferred writ petition which finally culminated into Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022 by which the order of demand has been quashed and set aside vide order dated 31.07.2023 by holding that it should not have been quantified in terms of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the matter was remitted before the authority concerned to quantify the quantum of penalty with respect to each truck in terms of Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer’s Rules, 2007.

¶59

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that contrary to the said specific direction while remitting the matter to quantify in terms of the provision of Rule 2007, the decision has been taken, as impugned, by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, dated 07.03.2025 on the basis of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage), Rules, 2017.

¶60

The contention, therefore, has been raised that the Rule 2017 admittedly has been brought in the month of February, 2018 and the day when the Co-ordinate Division

¶61

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶62

Bench has passed an order, there was no whisper of applicability of Rule 2017, but even then and ignoring the specific direction passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, the additional liability has been casted upon to the writ petitioner.

¶63

Mr. Shray Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit justifying the said decision, but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.07.2023 has completely been given the go-by.

¶64

This Court, considering the submission made on behalf of the parties, is of the view that once the order has been passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, it is none of the business of the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh to apply the provision of Rule 2017. Even though, the same Rule was not applicable on the day and moreover, the specific direction to that effect has been passed by the Coordinate Bench to quantify the amount of penalty in terms of provision of Rule 2007.

¶65

This Court has failed to understand that the said conduct of the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh is completely in defiance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶66

Let the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh appear in person and explain the said conduct.

¶67

It is made clear that if the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, the incumbent officer, who has passed the order if transferred to another district, his appearance is required and, as such, he will appear on the next date of hearing along with the present District Mining Officer, Ramgarh. List this matter on 13.11.2025.”

¶68

3. The aforesaid I.A. No.15220 of 2025 is taken on record.

¶69

4. Mr. Nishant Abhishek, who is at present working as the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh has stated and admitted before this Court by referring to the paragraph-6 of the said interlocutory application that the order passed which is impugned in the present writ petition is contrary to the direction passed by this Court dated

¶70

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶71

31.07.2023 in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022, for ready reference, the said paragraph-6 is being referred herein:

¶72

6. That it is stated and submitted that the answering respondent after going through the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 06.11.2025 seeks leave of the Hon’ble Court to revisit the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the answering deponent in terms of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022.

¶73

5. It has been stated in the said paragraph that the concerned Mining Officer intends to revisit the order dated 07.03.2025 for the purpose of passing order in terms of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022.

¶74

6. We are not concerned with such statement of revisiting the order, rather we are concerned more as to how an officer in the rank of District Mining Officer can pass an order on its own will, when there is specific direction by the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022.

¶75

7. The further concern of this Court is that the District Mining Officer has considered himself to be the appellate authority sitting upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which cannot be accepted, since we are here to maintain the majesty of the order passed by the court of law, equally it is also the duty of the public functionary to maintain the majesty of the Court’s order. 8. This Court considers the conduct of the officer to be contemptuous.

¶76

9. Therefore, we are issuing notice upon the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh to specify as to why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him.

¶77

10. Let the aforesaid show cause be filed by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh.

¶78

11. List this matter on 05th December, 2025.”

¶79

19. Pursuant thereto, Mr. Nishant Abhishek, the District

¶80

Mining Officer, In-charge is physically present before this Court.

¶81

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶82

20. One show cause has been filed by him, wherein it paragraph-5, it has been stated that the respondent no. 3 due to confusion computed the dues under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 in place of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer‟s Rules, 2007.

¶83

21. It has further been stated in the show cause that as per the provision as contained under Rule 16 of Rules, 2017, which contains a Repeal and Saving Clause, the order has been placed in in terms of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 instead of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer‟s Rules, 2007. It has been stated that the impugned order has been passed under the wrong provision due to bona fine mistake.

¶84

22. Further, one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.15220 of 2025 was also filed wherein, it has specifically been stated at paragraph 6 that „.. after going through the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 06.11.2025 seeks leave of the Hon’ble Court to revisit the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the answering deponent in terms of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 616 of 2022’

¶85

23. This Court, considering the explanation furnished in I.A. No. 15220 of 2025, in particular at paragraph 6 to the effect that the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 will be revisited so

¶86

2025:JHHC:36561-DB

¶87

that it be in terms of order dated 31.07.2023 passed in LPA No. 616 of 2022 and in show cause filed by respondent no. 3, the District Mining Officer, In-charge, Ramgarh, is of the view that explanation so furnished by the District Mining Officer, In-charge, Ramgarh is to be accepted.

¶88

24. Accordingly, the same is accepted, as the District Mining Officer, In-charge, Ramgarh, himself is present in Court as also the undertaking has been furnished by him in the I.A. No. 15220 of 2025 in particular at paragraph 6 to the effect that the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 will be revisited.

¶89

25. In view thereof, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh [Incharge] is directed to carry out the aforesaid undertaking within a period of three weeks‟ from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶90

26. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶91

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

¶92

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶93

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶94

5^th December, 2025 A.F.R. Alankar/-

One Up Minerals and Infrastructure Private Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Anupam Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

One Up Minerals and Infrastructure Private Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Anupam Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taraknath Chatterjee Vs Munmun Pandey

Dheeraj Kumar Lal Vs Smita Gupta

Rohit Gupta Vs Rupa Gupta

Om Prakash Choudhary Vs Renu Kumari

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary Deptt of Minor Irrigation Vs Som Nath Ojha

Dr. Pritam Kumari @ Dr. Preetam Kumari Vs Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal