M/S Hindalco Industries Limited, through Its Authorized Representative Samta Sinha, Vs State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary, Dept. of Industries, Mines and Geology

¶1

2025:JHHC:27170-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P (C) No.4547 of 2025

¶4

-----

¶5

M/s Hindalco Industries Limited, having its office at Hindalco Complex, Court Road, P.O. Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, District, Lohardaga, through its authorized representative Samta Sinha, W/O Amit Kumar, aged about 40 years, resident of Jaganath Garden, Pundag, P.O. & P.S. Pundag, Ranchi. ....... … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶8

Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶9

District Mining Officer, Lohardaga P.O. Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga

¶10

Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga P.O. Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. .. … … Respondents

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondents : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III

¶16

------ Order No.04 / Dated: 8^th September, 2025

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the demand raised against the petitioner as contained in letter dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure-7).

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29^th July, 2025, in W.P.(C) No. 3636 of 2025.

¶19

Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that there is no difficulty in disposing of the present writ petition in terms of the aforesaid order. However, it is submitted that the petitioner may be directed to avail the said remedy within a specified period, and if the petitioner fails to appear, the

¶20

2025:JHHC:27170-DB

¶21

authority may be left at liberty to proceed on the basis of the demand issued against the petitioner.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and, after appreciating the arguments advanced on their behalf, have perused the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 29^th July, 2025, in W.P.(C) No. 3636 of 2025, wherein a similar demand notice dated 17.06.2025, issued by the District Mining Officer, Lohardaga, was challenged. The said notice was issued against the present petitioner, but in relation to a different subject matter from that in W.P.(C) No. 3636 of 2025.

¶23

The Coordinate Bench declined to interfere with the said demand and dismissed the writ petition in limine, with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all points before the concerned authority.

¶24

The impugned demand herein is also of a similar nature, wherein time has been granted to the petitioner to put forth his defence. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed in limine, in terms of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 29^th July, 2025, in W.P.(C) No. 3636 of 2025, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the concerned authority.

¶25

If the petitioner approaches the authority within a period of 15 days from today, the authority shall take a final decision in accordance with law. However, if the petitioner fails to submit his defence within the aforesaid period, the authority shall be at liberty to proceed in pursuance of the said demand notice.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed and, as such, disposed of.

¶27

Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

Sudhir

¶31

2

M/S Hindalco Industries Limited, through Its Authorized Representative Samta Sinha, v. State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary, Dept. of Industries, Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hindalco Industries Limited, through Its Authorized Representative Samta Sinha, v. State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary, Dept. of Industries, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trustline Mining and Minerala Represented through Its Partner Namely, Rashid Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishun Shood And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Aditya Kumar Vs Union of India Thro the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue

Prakash @ Prakash Nonia Vs Lalita Devi

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Sri Prakash Chandra Vs Forest

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