Binay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

2025:JHHC:27865-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 769 of 2025

------

Binay Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Devnanadan Singh, resident of Kharik, Tapej, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶5

... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶9

3.Additional Collector, Chatra having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶10

The District Mining Officer, Chatra, having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

¶11

With

¶12

W.P.(C) No.3559 of 2020

¶13

-----

¶14

M/s RUPUCHAK ENTERPRISES, a Proprietorship concern, having its office at Mouza Dudhkewra, PO and PS Jamtara, District Jamtara, through its partner Amarendra Tiwari, aged about 38 years, son of Rameshwar Tiwari, resident of Station Road, Mihijam, PO and PS Mihijam, District Jamtara (Jharkhand), PIN 815354. .... … Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002.

¶17

Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002.

¶18

3.Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Dumka, PO and PS Dumka, District Dumka.

¶19

Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, PO and PS Jamtara, District Jamtara

¶20

5.District Mining Officer, Jamtara, PO and PS Jamtara, District Jamtara.

¶21

… … Respondents

¶22

With

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 826 of 2025

¶24

M/s APN Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at Mauza Chataniyan, PO and PS Sadar, District Chatra, Jharkhand represented through its Director Amit Kumar Sahay, aged about 44 years, son of Srikant Kumar Sahay, resident of village Awwal Muhalla, PO and PS Chatra, District: Chatra, Jharkhand. ... .... Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Jharkhand represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶27

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶28

1

¶29

2025:JHHC:27865-DB

¶30

3.Additional Collector, Chatra having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶31

The District Mining Officer, Chatra, having its office at Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

¶32

With

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 1570 of 2025

¶34

Sai Kripa Telcom and Construction Private Limited having its registered office at Sai Mansion, Plot No. D-49, 1^st floor, Harmu Housing Colony, near Sahjanand Chowk, Ranchi, PO Harmu, PS Argora, District Ranchi through its Managing Director namely Kripa Shankar Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Tej Bahadur Singh, resident of Plot No. D-49, Sai Mansion, near Sahjanand Chowk, SBI ATM, Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, PO Harmu, PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶35

... .... Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

1.The State of Jharkhand represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶38

The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar having its office at Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand.

¶39

The District Mining Officer, Latehar, having its office at Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate [In WP(C) Nos. 769 of 2025,WP(C) No. 826 of 2025 & In WP(C) No. 1570 of 2025] Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate; Mr. S. Shekhar, Advocate [In W.P.(C) No. 3559 of 2020] For the Respondent(s): Mr.Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.V; Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II; Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate ------ Order No.07/Dated: 9^th September, 2025

¶44

[Per se, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

¶45

The present writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders passed by the District Mining Officers of the concerned district. WP(C) Nos. 769 of

¶46

2

¶47

2025:JHHC:27865-DB

¶48

2025 and WP (C) No. 826 of 2025 have been filed for quashing the order dated 25.1.2025, WP(C) No. 3559 of 2020 has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2020 and WP(C) No.1570 of 2025 has been filed for quashing the orders dated 01.03.2025, 09.10.2024, 29.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 respectively on the ground that due process of law has not been followed, i.e., principles of natural justice, and without having jurisdiction, on the relevant point of time, the concerned authorities have passed the impugned orders.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matters vide orders dated 17.2.2025, 25.2.2025 and 2.4.2025 passed in WP( C) No. 769 of 2025, WP(C) Nos. 826 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 1570 of 2025 respectively.

¶50

The learned counsel for the State upon the above submissions has submitted that the State Government on consideration of the aforesaid orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has come out with a notification conferring power upon the authority. It has been contended that the issue of jurisdiction is one of the grounds said to be the foremost ground and, as such, in view of the conferment of power, the writ petitioners wish to go before the authority concerned. Therefore, these writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction upon the concerned authority to decide the issues involved in these petitions.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that there is no difficulty in approaching the authority in view of the conferment of power by the State Government vide notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025-, but so far as the case of the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 769 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 826 of 2025 are concerned, the demand has been raised on the basis of report of joint inspection committee of which the District Mining Officer of the concerned district was one of the parties. It has further been contended that since the District Mining Officer is the original authority in view of the notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025 and, since, the District Mining Officer is the party to the joint inspection committee too, hence, there is

¶52

3

¶53

2025:JHHC:27865-DB

¶54

likelihood of causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioners on the principle that a man cannot be judge of the his own cause.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the State after going through the documents related to joint inspection committee submits that the joint inspection committee consists of four officers, one of which was the District Mining Officer of the concerned district. Hence, the officer higher than the District Mining Officer may be directed to be approached by the petitioners for proper adjudication of the issue involved.

¶56

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that the matters may be disposed of.

¶57

This Court considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties is of the view that so far as WP(C) No. 769 of 2025 and WP(C) No. 826 of 2025 are concerned, the same are being disposed of without entering into the merits of the issue, due to want of jurisdiction as has been admitted by the State, i.e., self-explanatory after issuance of the notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025.

¶58

In view of above, the impugned orders need interference and, accordingly, the impugned orders, both, dated 25.1.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 769 of 2025 and WP (C) No. 826 of 2025 are hereby quashed and set-aside. The Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology of concerned district(s) are directed to issue show-cause-notice to the petitioners within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of the copy of this order stipulating time for furnishing the explanation. The petitioners are to respond within the time stipulated in the showcause-notice.

¶59

The Deputy Director of the concerned district(s) are also directed to take final decision within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of the said explanation. It is made clear that in case no response is being filed on behalf of the petitioners, he would be at liberty to proceed for taking final decision within the aforesaid period.

¶60

So far as WP(C) No. 3559 of 2020 and WP(C) No. 1570 of 2025 are concerned, the learned counsel for the parties have agreed in view of the concession of the learned counsel for the State to approach

¶61

4

¶62

2025:JHHC:27865-DB

¶63

the competent authority i.e. District Mining Officer of the concerned district(s).

¶64

Hence, impugned orders passed in WP (C) No. 3559 of 2020 and WP (C) No. 1570 of 2025 respectively are hereby quashed and setaside as without having jurisdiction on the relevant point of time the impugned orders were passed by the concerned authority as has been admitted by the State, i.e., self-explanatory after issuance of the notification no. 212 dated 6^th May, 2025.

¶65