Rajesh Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.2949 of 2020

Rajesh Sinha, s/o late Arjun Prasad, aged about 50 years, Director of Roshan Infrotech (I) Pvt. Ltd., resident of 80 A New A.G.Colony, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi Jharkhand … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O.+ P.S.+ DistrictHazaribagh

¶8

District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O.+ P.S.+ District Hazaribagh

¶9

Prem Kumar, S/o Tribhawan Mahto, R/o-village Pabra, P.SKatkam Sandi, P.O.- Pabra, Disrtirct – Hazaribagh

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

----------

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II (through V.C.) Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II -----

¶15

Order No.07/Dated 02.09.2025

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

¶17

the Constitution of India for issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of memo no. 245 dated 06.03.2020 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 (Annexure-3) by which notice has been issued against the petitioner U/s 56 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2004 with a

¶18

1

¶19

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

¶20

instruction to deposit the fine amount to Rs. 2,31,862/along with statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 37,778/which is arbitrary and also against the provision of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

¶21

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.03.2020 issued under the signature of respondent no.3, by which notice has been issued against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 with instruction to deposit the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 2,31,862/along with statutory taxes amount amounting to Rs. 37,778/-.

¶22

It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he is the developer and was carrying out the construction of the multistoried building in view of the sanctioned map having been sanctioned by Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation, vide B.C. Case No. 902 of 2013 dated 31.12.2013. The petitioner has purchased the building construction materials i.e. sand and chips. All of a sudden, notice was issued under the signature of respondent no.3 dated 06.03.2020 in exercise of power conferred under Section 56 of the JMMC Rules by raising the demand of Rs. 2,31,862/- along with statutory taxes amount amounting to Rs. 37,778/-.

¶23

2

¶24

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

¶25

The contention of the writ petitioner that he is not the lease-holder, rather purchased the sand and chips from the bonafide seller. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that, immediately, after receipt of the notice, he has given the vouchers to substantiate the element of purchase of sand/chips, but without taking a final decision by considering the vouchers showing the purchase in bonafide manner straight away the demand has been issued. Therefore, the present writ petition.

¶26

The counter affidavit has been filed, wherein interalia the stand has been taken that there is no error in the said demand, since, the said demand was raised in view of the provision as contained in Rule 56 of JMMC, Rules, 2004.

¶27

This Court has heard the matter on 1^st September, 2025 and in pursuant thereto, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has been directed to appear physically.

¶28

Mr. Ajit Kumar, at present, holding the post of District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has appeared. The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has stated that the day when the demand was raised, he was not holding the post of the District Mining Officer, rather he has joined the post subsequent to the decision so taken as is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶29

3

¶30

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

¶31

He, however, has apprised this Court that a predecessor-in-office who has passed the order who was holding the post the District Mining Officer, Incharge capacity and now he is posted in the headquarter as Assistant Mining Officer.

¶32

This Court, thereafter, has directed the learned State counsel to call upon the said incumbent. In pursuant to the said direction, the incumbent, holding the office during the relevant time, has appeared.

¶33

He after going through the original record and on a pinpointed question that when the show cause notice has been issued seeking explanation from the writ petitioner and as to whether the said explanation, if admitted to be filed, then how it has been dealt with.

¶34

The concerned officer has stated that no decision has been taken on the said explanation furnished appended with the vouchers to show the bonafide purchase of the chips and the sand dumped nearby the area of construction of a multistoried building.

¶35

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the officers concerned and has also gone through the averment made in the counter affidavit. The issue which requires consideration on the basis of the factual aspect as has been recorded hereinabove, particularly, the admitted fact of non-

¶36

4

¶37

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

¶38

consideration of the reply furnished by the writ petitioner in pursuance to the explanations offered.

¶39

No one can dispute that if the administrative authority is calling upon the party concerned to explain the accusation of commission of any irregularity, then the explanation, if furnished, it is a bounded duty of the administrative authority to take decision on consideration of such explanation.

¶40

The same is required to be there for the purpose of observance of the cardinal principle of natural justice as also to have the compliance of the whole decision of the authority concerned who for the purpose of coming to a conclusion has issued explanation, but there the concerned authority straight away, even through explanation was furnished, has saddled the writ petitioner with a liability by raising the demand of Rs.2,31,862/- along with the statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 37,778/-.

¶41

This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that Mr. Nitesh Gupta, during the relevant time who was holding the post of District Mining Officer, in-charge capacity has failed in discharge of his administrative function properly.

¶42

As such, the impugned demand needs interference, accordingly, the impugned demand contained in Memo

¶43

5

¶44

2025:JHHC:26683-DB

¶45

No. 245 dated 06.03.2020 is hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶46

In the result, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

¶47

However, the matter is being remitted to the present District Mining Officer, who is to consider the explanation already furnished alongwith the relevant documents showing the purchase of the material.

¶48

The present District Mining Officer is to take final decision within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶49

So far as the conduct of the Assistant Mining Officer is concerned, he has shown his sorry affairs and, as such, although this Court was intending to refer for initiation of departmental proceeding, being the first chance, the said order is not being passed by cautioning the officer concerned to be careful in future in taking decision in future.

¶50

Accordingly, this instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶52

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶53

Rajnish/R.K.

¶54

6

Rajesh Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sinha 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

Jitendra Kumar Mehta Vs Seema Kumari

Bijay Kuamr Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Yasoda Mehra

M/S Nishant Roadlines Represented through Its Sole Proprietor Sri Umlesh Ojha Vs the Union of India through the Principal Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate

Rajiv Kumar Vs Bhuwan Bhaskar

Shankar Oraon Vs Bhuwan Bhaskar