Disposed¶19

Bijay Kuamr Ray v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2025WPC/3028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court (Ranchi), W.P.(C) No.3028 of 2024, coram Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., decided 01.09.2025. Article 226 writ petition against mining-related demand of Rs.2,75,48,934/- (royalty, DMFT, income tax, environmental cess, management fees) rendered infructuous after fresh measurement completed and quantum determined; fresh demand treated as fresh cause of action; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the fresh demand before the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the writ petitioner to challenge the fresh demand before the appropriate forum. ¶19

Bijay Kuamr Ray Vs State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:26309-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3028 of 2024

¶3

------

¶4

Bijay Kumar Ray, aged about 51 years, S/O-Janardan Rai, R/O-P.O.Lataki, P.S.-Jamua, District-Giridih.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S and District-Giridih ..... .... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC(Mines)-III Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC(Mines)-III

¶11

------ 05/Dated: 01.09.2025

¶12

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the demand having been raised against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,75,48,934/- under the head of cost of royalty, DMFT, income tax, environmental cess, management fees etc.

¶13

2. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, has submitted that the said measurement since has been conducted behind the back and on the protest of the writ petitioner, the authority has undergone for fresh measurement and that has also been completed.

¶14

3. It has been submitted that in view of the fresh decision to conduct fresh measurement and the same having been concluded, the writ petition at this stage, has lost its force, since, there is likelihood of coming of new demand.

¶15

¶16

2025:JHHC:26309-DB

¶17

4. Learned State Counsel has submitted by not disputing the fact of the fresh measurement. He, in addition thereto, has submitted on instruction that quantum has also been determined.

¶18

5. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that after having the fresh demand, a fresh cause of action has arisen, hence, the writ petition has lost its force.

¶19

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is rendered to be infructuous and as such, disposed of reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to challenge the fresh demand before the appropriate forum.

¶20

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶21

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶22

Rohit/-

¶23

Bijay Kuamr Ray v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kuamr Ray 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Tata Steel Limited through Its Legal Head Mrs Meena Lall Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ms Gupta Traders through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Rajesh Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate Godda

Shivam Dhir Contractor through Its Proprietor Shivam Dhir Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited through Its Managing Director

M/S Savita Stone through Its Proprietor Shiv Kumar Barnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anindita Steels Limited (Mining Lessee), Represented by Its Direotor Firoz Abdi Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

Ajay Kumar Chandrawanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand