Allowed

M/S Apn Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Its Director Amit Kumar Sahay v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Principal Secretary, Dept of Mines and Geology

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2025WPC/929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed two writ petitions challenging demand notices issued by the District Mining Officer implicating the demand of payment of excess production. The Court quashed the notices for violating the principle of natural justice due to the lack of a show-cause notice and directed the authority to issue fresh show-cause notices within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

The demand notices dated 25.01.2025 were quashed and set aside. The District Mining Officer was directed to issue and serve fresh show-cause notices within two weeks, affording the petitioners three w

M/S Apn Developers and Stone Pvt… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P(C) No.929 of 2025

¶4

M/s APN Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. having it office at MauzaChataniyan, P.O. and P.S 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, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand… ………….. Petitioner

¶5

Vrs .

¶6

The State of Jharkhand represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶8

Additional Collector, Chatra having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶9

The District Mining Officer, Chatra, having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … ... Respondents .

¶10

With

¶11

W.P(C) No.930 of 2025

¶12

Binay Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Devnanadan Singh, resident of Kharik, Tapej, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. ………….. Petitioner

¶13

Vrs .

¶14

The State of Jharkhand represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶16

Additional Collector, Chatra having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶17

The District Mining Officer, Chatra, having its Office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … ... Respondents .

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines) Mr. Shabaz Akhtar, AC to AAG-III Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC (Mines)

¶22

¶23

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶24

Order No. 07 / Dated: 10^th September, 2025

¶25

Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶26

Both the writ petitions are having the similar cause of action and, as such, with the consent of both the parties these matters are being taken up for hearing together.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.929 of 2025

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

¶29

“For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order (s) /Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the letter No. 122 dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra whereby and where under petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.25,64,653/- in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/ dispatch of 5,11,478 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the petitioner situated in Mouza- Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39 admeasuring area 1.72 Acres.”

¶30

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

¶31

(i) The petitioner being the prospective applicant for grant of mining lease, applied for the Environmental Clearance before the concerned authority for the proposed project "Chatania Stone Mine" and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter No. 48 dated 15.07.2021 granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner.

¶32

(ii) It is pleaded that Mining Lease dated 04.09.2021 was executed in favour of the petitioner for mining of stone boulder for the period of 10 years i.e. till 02.09.2031 over an area of 1.72 Acres land situated at Mouza- Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39.

¶33

¶34

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶35

(iii) It is pleaded that the petitioner applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the petitioner vide CTE Reference No.298 dated 05.11.2021 and consequently consent to Operate (CTO) was also granted to it.

¶36

(iv) Further, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 16.12.2023 granted Consent to Operate to the lessee for an Area of 1.72 acres with the production limit of 9302 cum per year for the period up to 30.11.2025.

¶37

(v) It is pleaded that the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no.1342 dated 18.12.2024 informed the petitioner that the physical inspection of the leasehold area has been scheduled on 21.12.2024 and further directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, i.e., EC, CTE, CTO/Lease Deed at the time of inspection.

¶38

(vi) It is pleaded that to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter No.122 dated 25.01.2025 directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.25,64,653/- in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/ dispatch of 5,11,478 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the petitioner situated in Mouza- Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39 admeasuring area 1.72 Acres, within the period of 30 days failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount.

¶39

(vii) It is further pleaded that on the very same date, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 123 dated 25.01.2025 has

¶40

¶41

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶42

imposed penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 16,97,93,024/-under Rule 54 (6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for illegal mining of stones over 69,366 square feet which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the period of 30 days, failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.123 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶43

(viii) It is pleaded that with premeditation, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 128 dated 25.01.2025 has directed the petitioner to stop the mining activities over the leasehold area in terms of Rule 34(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and has further issued show cause upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days under Rule 22(5) and 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for termination of the mining lease deed of petitioner.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.930 of 2025

¶45

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

¶46

“For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order (s) /Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the letter No. 125 dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-13) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.13,15,165/in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/ dispatch of 2,62,288 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the

¶47

¶48

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶49

petitioner situated in MouzaMishraul, Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214 (P), 245, 243, 250(P) admeasuring area 3.58 Acres”

¶50

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

¶51

(i) It is pleaded that the Mining Lease dated 14.11.2015 was executed in favour of M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works for the lease hold land pertaining to Mauza Mishraul, Thana Sadar, Khata No. 12, Khesra No. 237, total area 1.69 acres for the period of 10 years.

¶52

(ii) It is pleaded that M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the lessee vide CTE Reference No. CTE/HZR/670020 dated 22.04.2016.

¶53

(iii) It is pleaded that consequently, Consent to Operate (CTO) was also granted M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter reference no. сто7683676/2020/44 dated 25.03.2020 for an Area of 1.09 Hectares in Khata No. 11, 12 and 16 pertaining to plot no. 241, 237 and 242 for the period up to 31.03.2024.

¶54

(iv) It is pleaded that M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works had entered into a Mining Lease dated 19.10.2019 with the State of Jharkhand for an adjoining plots of land pertaining to Muza Mishraul, Thana No. 271, Thana Sadar, Khata No. 26, 12, 33, 01, Khesra No. 214(P), 245, 243, 250(P) for a total area of 3.58 acres for the period of 10 years.

¶55

(v) It is pleaded that thereafter M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for

¶56

¶57

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶58

grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the lessee vide CTE Reference No. JSPCB/HO/RNC/CТЕ6780873/2019/696 dated 25.12.2019 for an area of 3.58 Acres pertaining to Khata No. 01, 12, 26, 33, Plot No. 250(P), 245, 214(P), 243.

¶59

(vi) Further, vide letter dated 03.11.2020 M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works requested the District Mining Officer, Chatra to pass an order regarding the surrender of mining lease dated 14.11.2015 issued in favour of petitioner pertaining to Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres.

¶60

(vii) It is pleaded that M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works vide letter dated 19.04.2023 submitted the Mine Closure plan for Mishrol Stone Mine situated in Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres.

¶61

(viii) Thereafter, District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 283 dated 16.03.2024 informed M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works that in terms of Rule 26 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide order dated 01.02.2024 has granted approval for surrender of mining lease dated 14.11.2015 pertaining to Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres.

¶62

(ix) It is pleaded that the petitioner had applied for a transfer of the mining lease dated 19.10.2019 issued in favour of M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works pertaining to Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214(P), 245, 243 and 250 (P) admeasuring 3.58 Acres. The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide Letter No. 890 dated 16.08.2024 informed the petitioner that the Deputy

¶63

¶64

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶65

Commissioner, Chatra vide order dated 12.07.2024 has granted approval for transfer of aforesaid mining lease in favour of the petitioner.

¶66

(x) It is pleaded that thereafter Mining lease dated 25.09.2024 was executed between the petitioner and State of Jharkhand for the land pertaining to Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214(P), 245, 243 and 250 (P) admeasuring 3.58 Acres.

¶67

(xi) It is pleaded that the petitioner applied for transfer of the Environmental Clearance granted to M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works. Accordingly, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter no. 433 dated 09.12.2024 transferred the Environmental Clearance in favor of

¶68

the petitioner.

¶69

(xii) It is pleaded that District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 1 341 dated 18.12.2024 informed the petitioner that the physical inspection of the leasehold area has been scheduled on 23.12.2024 and further directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents i.e. EC, СТЕ, СТО/ Lease Deed at the time of inspection.

¶70

(xiii) It is pleaded that to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter No. 125 dated 25.01.2025 directed the petitioner to make the of payment of Rs.13,15,165/- in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/dispatch of 2,62,288 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the petitioner situated in Mouza Mishraul, Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214 (P), 245, 243, 250(P) admeasuring area 3.58 Acres,

¶71

¶72

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶73

within the period of 30 days failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount.

¶74

(xiv) It is pleaded that on the very same date, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 126 dated 25.01.2025 has imposed penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 09,41,92,446/- under Rule 54 (6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for illegal mining of stones over 49,814 square feet which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the period of 30 days, failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.126 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶75

Being aggrieved, these writ petitions have been filed to challenge the impugned demand dated 25.01.2025 contained in letter no.122 and contained in letter no.125 mainly on the ground that the District Mining Officer without following the principle of natural justice and without issuing any show-cause notice raised the aforesaid demand which is illegal and arbitrary and the same may be quashed and set aside.

¶76

Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners:

¶77

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the factual aspects in both the writ petitions are same save and except the order which has been sought to be quashed has been issued under different letter numbers but both are of the same date, i.e., both demands have been raised on 25.01.2025.

¶78

¶79

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶80

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken the ground that before issuance of the aforesaid demands, no notice has been issued showing the cause that on what ground the said liability have been casted upon the writ petitioners.

¶81

It has been submitted that however the said demands are based upon the joint inquiry report, but even the copy of the joint inquiry report has not been supplied even though the entire demands have been raised on the basis of the joint inquiry report coupled with the report of the Circle Officer wherein the Inquiry Committee as also the Circle Office have found that the mining operation has been carried out beyond the periphery of the lease deed area as per the lease deed.

¶82

Therefore, the learned counsel has submitted that the only ground which is being taken for violation of principle of natural justice before raising demand in question contained in letter no.122 and letter no.125 both dated 25.01.2025.

¶83

Submission on behalf of the respondent-State:

¶84

In W.P(C) No.929 of 2025, the State is being represented by Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned AAG-III while in W.P.(C) No. 930 of 2025, the State is being represented by Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines).

¶85

The learned State counsel while referring the counter-affidavit has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioners that opportunity of hearing was not given, since, the representatives of the writ petitioner, namely, Sri Vikram Kumar Mishra [in W.P(C) No.929 of 2025] and Md. Wakil [in W.P(C) No. 930 of 2025] have participated in the joint inspection as would be evident from the joint inquiry report

¶86

¶87

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶88

wherein the reference of the aforesaid authorized representatives has been made.

¶89

It has been contended by referring to the impugned orders that even the name of the said authorized representatives of the writ petitioners have been referred in the joint inquiry report.

¶90

However, in response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has seriously disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶91

It has been submitted that even accepting that the authorized representatives of the petitioners were present at the time of inspection, but that does not mean that the copy of the inquiry report have been served to the writ petitioners, rather, the proper course could have been with the respondents to supply the copy of the inquiry report along with the show-cause, but since the show-cause notice itself has not been issued then where is the question of supply of the inquiry report.

¶92

The learned State counsel, however, has admitted to the extent that prior to casting liability by issuing the impugned demands, no showcause notice has been issued.

¶93

Analysis

¶94

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in both the writ petitions as also in the counteraffidavits filed on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶95

The sole ground taken by the writ petitioners in assailing the impugned demands both dated 25.01.2025 vide annexure-6 contained in letter no. 122 [in W.P(C) No.929 of 2025] and vide annexure-13 contained in letter no. 125 [in W.P(C) No.930 of 2025] are in the violation of principle of natural justice.

¶96

¶97

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶98

This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, has gone through the impugned demands so as to consider the element of violation of principle of natural justice.

¶99

It is evident from the impugned orders containing the said demands that the reference of the joint inquiry report, the report of the Circle Officer and the photographs taken from the Satellite of the area concerned has been referred along with the name of the authorized representatives of the writ petitioners. But we have not found as to whether any explanation as has been sought for from the writ petitioners is available in the impugned demands.

¶100

It cannot be disputed and as per the settled law that if any show cause has been given to the party against whom the liability is being casted or putting civil consequence, then, the reference of show-cause notice is required to be there.

¶101

It is also for the purpose to show the issue of consideration by the authority concerned, since, the consideration always mean the active application of mind and even if the reference of show cause notice has been made in the impugned orders for demand, as the case herein is, the same cannot be said to be consideration merely because the show-cause notice has been referred, rather the authority is to apply its mind by taking view either way, either in favour of the litigant concerned who has put his defence or in favour of the authority casting liability putting civil consequence upon the party concerned.

¶102

The same having not available in the said demand notices and, as such, the impugned demands have been issued without seeking any explanation from the writ petitioners.

¶103

¶104

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶105

However, the aforesaid fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State in both the cases.

¶106

This Court, considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that the impugned demand notices dated 25.01.2025 vide annexure-6 contained in letter no. 122 [in W.P(C) No.929 of 2025] and vide annexure-13 contained in letter no. 125 [in W.P(C) No.930 of 2025] which is the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions require interreference.

¶107

Accordingly, both the demand notices dated 25.01.2025 vide annexure-6 contained in letter no. 122 [in W.P(C) No.929 of 2025] and vide annexure-13 contained in letter no. 125 [in W.P(C) No.930 of 2025] are quashed and set aside.

¶108

In view of the above, both the writ petitions stand allowed.

¶109

We are conscious that on technicalities no advantage can be given to the party concerned and, therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be referred before the authority concerned, i.e., the District Mining Officer, Chatra for consideration afresh.

¶110

The District Mining Officer, Chatra, therefore, is directed to issue show-cause notice reflecting therein the irregularities said to be committed by the petitioners along with the relevant documents upon which the reliances are being placed.

¶111

The said show-cause notices are to be given to the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶112

The petitioners are to respond to the said show-cause notice within a further period of three weeks.

¶113

The concerned District Mining Officer shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within a further period of three weeks.

¶114

¶115

2025:JHHC:27848-DB

¶116

However, it is made clear that if no response in pursuance to the aforesaid show-cause notice will be furnished by the writ petitioners, then the District Mining Officer, Chatra after completion of the period of three weeks shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶117

With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶118

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

¶119

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶120

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶121

Sudhir AFR

¶122

M/S Apn Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Its Director Amit Kumar Sahay v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Principal Secretary, Dept of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Apn Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Its Director Amit Kumar Sahay v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Principal Secretary, Dept of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Apn Developers and Stone Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Its Director Amit Kumar Sahay Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

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

Mukesh Prasad Vs Reshma Kumari @ Reshma Devi

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

Ramanika Kisku Vs State of Jharkhand

Kanhaiya Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary