Dismissed¶7

Binod Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Dec 2025WPC/5327/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P. (C) No. 5327 of 2025; Binod Modi v. State of Jharkhand; mica lease; raiyati land; Mouza Bhurai, Block Tisri, District Giridih; electronic auction of minor minerals; order dated 01.11.2024; earlier W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024 disposed 18.12.2024; appellate remedy; writ dismissed; liberty reserved; Article 226; Mines Commissioner order dated 28.05.2024; lease of 0.89 acres granted 27.09.2018.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024; if the appellate authority has already decided the issue, the petitioner may challenge that order before the appropriate forum. ¶7

Binod Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.11.2024 is maintainable when the Co-ordinate Bench, by order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024, had already disposed of the petitioner's earlier writ petition challenging the order dated 07.11.2024 with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy, and the petitioner has accordingly approached the appellate authority.

¶4

Court's answer

Having been granted liberty by the Co-ordinate Bench (order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024) to challenge the order dated 07.11.2024 before the appellate authority, and having admittedly approached that authority, the petitioner cannot again challenge the prior order dated 01.11.2024 by way of the present writ petition; the writ petition is dismissed.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy in terms of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024; if the appellate authority has already decided the issue, it is open to the petitioner to challenge that decision before the appropriate forum.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.11.2024 of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih directing grant of mica lease through electronic auction under the prescribed rule for minor minerals — DISMISSED. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024 challenging the order dated 07.11.2024, which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench on 18.12.2024 with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy; the petitioner admitted having approached the appellate authority, which had not yet decided the matter. The Division Bench held that there was no occasion to challenge the prior order dated 01.11.2024 afresh by a new writ petition, dismissed the petition, and reserved liberty to pursue the appellate remedy and, if the appellate authority had already decided, to challenge that decision before the appropriate forum.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:36905-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (C) No. 5327 of 2025

¶4

Binod Modi, aged about 79 years, Son of Jhari Modi, Resident at Gandhi School Road, Ward No. 25, P.O. & P.S.Jhumritelaiya, District- Koderma. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih.

¶9

District Mining Officer, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, DistrictGiridih … … Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.

¶12

… Order No.06/dated 09.12.2025

¶13

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs: -

¶14

a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) direction(s) upon the Respondents against the order dated 01.11.2024 whereby the Respondent no.3 has directed to the petitioner for granting the aforesaid lease through the Rule prescribed in Jharkhand Minor Mineral by Electronic Auction, however this petitioner has been mining since 1993 over the land in question.

¶15

b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) upon the Respondents to grant

¶16

( 2025:JHHC:36905-DB )

¶17

mica lease to the petitioner who was already been working over the raiyati land of total applied area 10.5 acres situated at Mouza Bhurai, Plot no. 63, 66, 67, 69, Block of Tisri, District- Giridih upto 2017.

¶18

c. For issuance of appropriate direction to execute the deed and issue the challan pursuant to order dated 27.09.2018 whereby only 0.89 acres lease is granted to the petitioner over the land of village Bhurai in Khata no. 8/10/11, Plot no. 66, 67, 68 to the petitioner and rest land is pending subject to no objection/ permission by the Central Government.

¶19

d. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) upon the Respondents to renew/grant to Lease of (Minor) Mineral Mica of raiyati land of remaining applied area of 9.61 (10.5-0.89) acres situated at Mouza Bhurai, Plot no. 63, 66, 67, 69, Block of Tisri, District- Giridih.

¶20

e. For issuance of appropriate direction to rest of lease area pursuant to order passed by Mines Commissioner, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 28.05.2024.

¶21

¶22

( 2025:JHHC:36905-DB )

¶23

Counter affidavit has been filed in pursuance to the order dated 04^th November, 2025. Respondent-State has taken serious objection by putting reliance upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 18.12.2024 appended to the counter affidavit as Annexure-E whereby and whereunder the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 07.11.2024 before the appropriate appellate authority and by doing so, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶24

It has been contended that herein the writ petitioner has again challenged an order said to be passed on 01.11.2024 as would be evident from prayer No.1(a) to the writ petition.

¶25

It has been submitted that when the Co-ordinate Bench has passed an order on 18.12.2024 and has not interfered with the order dated 07.11.2024, as such, it is not available for the writ petitioner to again challenge the order said to be passed prior to 07.11.2024 by filing the present writ petition.

¶26

Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that he has approached to the appellate authority in the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 18.12.2024 but still the appellate authority has not decided the matter.

¶27

This Court, in view of the aforesaid submission as has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner, therefore, is of the view that whatever is being objected by the learned counsel

¶28

¶29

( 2025:JHHC:36905-DB )

¶30

for the State is being admitted by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner meaning thereby the appellate authority, in terms of the order dated 18.12.2024 has to take a decision as is being submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, if that be so then where is the occasion to challenge the order dated 01.11.2024 as per the prayer made in the present writ petition.

¶31

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is to be dismissed and as such it is dismissed.

¶32

However, liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to pursue the remedy as he has already approached to the appellate authority as is being submitted by learned Counsel for the writ petitioner in terms of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6331 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶33

Needless to say, that if the appellate authority has already decided the issue, it is left open upon the writ petitioner to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum.

¶34

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶35

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶36

Dated 9^th December, 2025

¶37

P.K.S./Suman-

¶38

Binod Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Modi 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

Tafjul Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Ranchi

Naresh Sao Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director

Taffazul Hussain Alias Tafjul Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

M/S Sagar Mining and Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Munna Behera Vs M/S Shiva Minerals through Its Proprietor, Namely, Ujjwal Kumar Singh

The State of Jharkhand Vs Mansidh Surin

Rohit Sharma Vs Shivani Kumari Alias Sharma