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

¶1

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4929 of 2023

¶3

------

¶4

M/S Savita Stone through its proprietor Shiv Kumar Barnwal aged about 56 years S/O Late Prem Chand Lal Modi, Resident of Mahthadih, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District-Koderma

¶5

…. …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma (Jharkhand).

¶9

3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma (Jharkhand).

¶10

..... .... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate Mr. S.N. Saraswati, Advoate Ms. Rashika Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

¶13

04/Dated: 01.09.2025

¶14

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

¶15

Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: -

¶16

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) commanding and directing the respondents to extend the period of the Mining Lease of the petitioner for the mineral stone being granted in terms of order contained in Memo No. 390 dated 28.3.2016 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma by taking into consideration of the fact that the part of the period being shown in the Mining Lease deed remain in-operative and nonfunctional

¶17

¶18

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶19

in awaiting of Environmental Clearance certificate and at the same time in lacking of the aforesaid certificate the renewal of the alleged mining lease of the petitioner could not be made despite no fault on his part;

¶20

(ii) Further for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner concerning to elapsing of the period expired in obtaining the mandatory certificate prior to renewal of the mining lease;

¶21

(iii) Further for grant of any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled for.

¶22

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petitioner, required to be enumerated, which read as under: -

¶23

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that in respect of plot no.5688(part) and plot no.10938 (part) corresponding to Khata No.1340, a mining lease for stone was granted in the name of the aforesaid proprietorship firm and the aforesaid lease was granted in the year 2002 for a term of 10 years w.e.f. 06.12.2002 to 05.12.2012. On the basis of the aforesaid mining lease, the mining operations were being carried.

¶24

(ii) Before expiry of the maturity of the aforesaid lease, the application for renewal of the aforesaid lease was filed by the father of the petitioner on 22.08.2012 and the acknowledgement of the aforesaid application was

¶25

¶26

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶27

issued to the petitioner in Form-B vide letter no.1804 dated 22.08.2012 being issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma. After submission of the aforesaid application, the father of the petitioner was directed for compliance of the direction in the aforesaid letter with regard to deficiency found in the renewal application.

¶28

(iii) In the meantime, the steps for obtaining the mandatory requirement of Environmental clearance certificate was also taken by the father of the petitioner and the mining plan was also prepared and the same was approved by the competent authority under the signature of the Deputy Director, Drilling, Hazaribagh. After approval of the mining plan, the initiative was taken by the father of the petitioner for obtaining environmental clearance certificate and the application form with the pre-feasibility report along with scrutiny fee was submitted before the Principal Secretary, SEIAA, Jharkhand on 20.08.2014,

¶29

(iv) Thereafter, the environmental clearance certificate was granted vide letter dated 30.07.2015 being issued under the signature of the Member Secretary, SEIAA, Jharkhand.

¶30

(v) After issuance of the aforesaid mandatory certificate of environmental clearance and after due verification of all

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶33

the documents, the aforesaid mining lease was renewed in the name of the aforesaid firm of which the father of the petitioner was proprietor at the relevant time for the period of 10 years and accordingly, the lease deed was also executed on 02.04.2016 under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma.

¶34

(vi) After grant of renewal of the aforesaid lease in the year 2016 and also on execution of lease deed, the mining operation commenced by the petitioner irrespective of the fact that after expiry of the terms of the lease in question on 05.12.2012 to the date of grant of mining lease of renewal on 28.03.2016, the mining operation of the petitioner was non-operational and the petitioner was not allowed to continue with the mining activity by the order of the authority. During the pendency of the application filed for renewal of the mining lease, the petitioner was restrained from doing mining operation lacking of environmental clearance certificate which was issued to him finally on 31.07.2015.

¶35

(vii) The petitioner before expiry of the term of the lease in question had approached for extension of the period of his lease but no any heed was made upon his grievance. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶36

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority

¶37

¶38

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶39

concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the fact in right perspective.

¶40

4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to AG appearing for the respondentState has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

¶41

5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶42

6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by this Court.

¶43

7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

¶44

8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:-

¶45

15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e.,

¶46

(i)	Whether	the le	ase	can	be
renewed extension.	after 31	.03.2022	by	way	of

¶47

¶48

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶49

(ii) Whether seeking extension of the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period.

¶50

(iii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule 9( च ), wherein, the embargo has been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022.

¶51

(iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. , is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case.

¶52

(v) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. , is held to be per incuriam.

¶53

22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 ( ङ ) and ( च ), wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the

¶54

¶55

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶56

basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9( च ) provides that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022.

¶57

23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022.

¶58

24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9 (छ) as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction.

¶59

25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 ( ज )(12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9( च ) will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares.

¶60

26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an

¶61

¶62

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶63

application in view of the provision of Rule 9( ङ ).

¶64

27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9 ( च ) putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction.

¶65

42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9( च ) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

¶66

43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making

¶67

¶68

2025:JHHC:26322-DB

¶69

application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9( ङ ) of the JMMC Rules and once the application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9( च ).

¶70

46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision.”

¶71

9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has found that the issues involved herein are identical to that of the case, which has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025.

¶72

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025.

¶73

11. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶74

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶75

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶76

Rohit/- A.F.R.

¶77

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Yasoda Mehra