Ashok Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:24272-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2025

-----

Ashok Kumar Jha, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Kripa Sindhu Jha, resident of village- Telummari, P.O. – Sijua, P.S. Telumari, DistrictDhanbad … … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi

¶8

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

------For the Petitioner :Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.

¶12

¶13

Order No.05 / Dated 19^th August, 2025

¶14

1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issues have been involved in the instant writ petition, for the sake of convenience, relief(s) is quoted hereunder :-

¶15

(i) In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for grant of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the letter No. 1319, dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure-7) issued by District Mining Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder, District Mining Officer has been pleased to impose penalty of Rs. 5,94,790/- and interest from 16.04.2020 to 31.05.2024 amounting to Rs. 5,89,380/- being total amount of Rs. 11,80,170/- for the brick year 201920 in violation of Rule 4, 30, 31, 32 and 34(A)(1), 34(I) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule and the petitioner manufactured about 7,00,000 bricks without obtaining Environment Clearance and Consent to Operate from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being illegal, arbitrary and biased against the petitioner.

¶16

And

¶17

For quashing the letter No. 1432, dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-8) issued by District Mining Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder, District Mining Officer has been pleased to impose penalty of Rs. 7,52,652/- and interest from 07.05.2019 to 31.05.2024 amounting to Rs. 9,16,050/- being total amount of Rs. 16,68,675/- for the brick year 2018-19 in violation of Rule 4, 30, 31, 32 and 34(A)(1), 34(I) of

¶18

Page 1

¶19

2025:JHHC:24272-DB

¶20

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule and the petitioner manufactured about 9,20,000 bricks without obtaining Environment Clearance and Consent to Operate from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being illegal, arbitrary and biased against the petitioner. (ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for a declaration that Rule 65 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 is ultra vires to Section 15(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as the Central Government has not delegated the power to the State Government to frame any rule providing for a forum of appeal.

¶21

AND

¶22

For grant of any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled with.

¶23

2. Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued in the case at length, however, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned A.G. has submitted that the writ petitioner even though has been afforded an opportunity to represent his case before the authority as per the notice dated 31.05.2023, but he has chosen not to appear, as such, it is not a case where the plea of principle of natural justice is said to be taken as defense. Hence, the writ petition may not be entertained in view of the fact that there are two alternate remedies by way of appeal as well as revision is available.

¶24

3. Upon this, Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petition with a liberty to approach the appellate forum.

¶25

4. Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in accordance with law.

¶26

5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of

¶27

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶28

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶29

Umesh/Abhishek

¶30

Page 2

Ashok Kumar Jha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Jha 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

Sunil Kumar Puri Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

Ms Gautam Enterprises through Its Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Smt Beena Pani Agrawal Vs the Union of India through the Joint Secretary Ministry of Mines

Smt. Deoki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Zahiruddin Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

M/S Araanya Mines Private Limited Represented through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Mirtunjay Kumar Vs Union of India through Ministry of Coal