Anand Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented Thro Secretary Department of Mines and Geology

¶1

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1558 of 2024

¶3

------

¶4

Anand Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Sri Udit Singh, resident of village-Balra, P.O.-Babhandi, P.S.-Hariharganj, District Palamau (Jharkhand). …. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002.

¶7

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau.

¶8

3. The District Mining Officer, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau.

¶9

.... .... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

------

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate

¶13

For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. S.C.-I

¶14

------

¶15

C.A.V. on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 15/01/2026

¶16

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

¶17

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶18

seeking therein for the following reliefs: -

¶19

“ A. For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure-8) passed by the Respondent No.1 as the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No.20/2020, whereby the Revision preferred by the petitioner as against the order dated 08.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has been disallowed.

¶20

And/Or

¶21

B. Further issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.02.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau whereby the registered

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶24

Mining Lease of Stone in Mouza Chaparwar, Thana No.55, Khata No.91, Plot No.129 in Palamau District of Jharkhand State for a period of 10 years w.e.f 26.02.2014 has been prematurely terminated.

¶25

And/Or

¶26

C. Further for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Mining Lease hold area and further restraining the respondents from creating any third part right during the pendency of this Writ petition.”

¶27

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

¶28

(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was holding a Minor Mineral Mining Lease of Stone in Mouza Chaparwar, Thana No.55, Khata No.91, Plot No.129 in Palamau District of Jharkhand State for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 26.02.2014 under Jharkhand Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The aforesaid mining lease deed has already been executed and duly registered before the District Sub Registrar, Palamau.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner has been granted environmental clearance by the Member Secretary, Bihar Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter no.249 dated 30.01.2014.

¶30

(iii) The petitioner has been granted CTE, vide letter no.G-2 715 dated 21.07.2014 of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶31

(iv) The petitioner had been successfully operating the mine in

¶32

¶33

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶34

accordance with law, however, on 25.12.2016, he had met with an accident and slipped and thereafter, was under the treatment of Specialized Doctors at Medanta, CMC Vellore, etc.

¶35

(v) After the treatment, the petitioner received the letter no.230/M dated 08.02.2020 of the District Mining Officer, Palamau, whereby and whereunder, the mining lease of the petitioner over the land in question for 10 years has been prematurely terminated.

¶36

(vi) In letter no.230/M dated 08.02.2020, the respondent District Mining Officer has mentioned that a thirty days legal notice was issued to the petitioner vide his office letter no.881/M dated 28.06.2019 but the said letter could not be served upon the petitioner, hence, the petitioner could not reply or comply with or could not rectify the error and without serving the legal notice, the mining lease of the petitioner was terminated ex-parte.

¶37

(vii) The petitioner has not been served the 30 days legal notice by the respondents as mandated by Rule 27(2) of the JMMC Rules read along with the terms and conditions of the lease deed, hence, the impugned order of pre-matured termination of mining lease had been passed.

¶38

(viii) Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred revision before the learned Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand against the order dated 08.02.2020 which has been registered as Revision Case No.20 of 2020.

¶39

(ix) The District Mining Officer has stated by reiterating the

¶40

¶41

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶42

ground that there had been non-commencement of the work within three months of execution of the lease deed. The respondents had also taken the stand that notice has been issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 28.06.2019, which is in the signature of the District Mining Officer, however, no service report has been annexed. The respondents had also taken the stand that the District Mining Officer is competent to issue notice and after observing the procedure, the same has been cancelled. The learned Mines Commissioner, after taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, has passed the order dated 19.01.2024 in Revision Case No.20 of 2020 by disallowing the revision preferred by the petitioner.

¶43

(x) Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No.20 of 2020 and order dated 08.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶44

(xi) It is evident from the factual aspect that in letter no.230/M dated 08.02.2020, the respondent District Mining Officer has mentioned that a thirty days legal notice was issued to the petitioner vide his office letter no.881/M dated 28.06.2019 but the said letter could not be served upon the petitioner, hence, the petitioner could not reply or comply with or could not rectify the error and without serving the legal notice, the mining lease of the petitioner was terminated ex-parte.

¶45

(xii) The petitioner has not been served the 30 days legal notice

¶46

¶47

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶48

by the respondents as mandated by Rule 27(2) of the JMMC Rules read along with the terms and conditions of the lease deed, hence, the impugned order of pre-matured termination of mining lease had been passed.

¶49

(xiii) Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred revision before the learned Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand against the order dated 08.02.2020 which has been registered as Revision Case No.20 of 2020.

¶50

(xiv) The District Mining Officer has stated by reiterating the ground that there had been non-commencement of the work within three months of execution of the lease deed. The respondents had also taken the stand that notice has been issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 28.06.2019, which is in the signature of the District Mining Officer, however, no service report has been annexed. The respondents had also taken the stand that the District Mining Officer is competent to issue notice and after observing the procedure, the same has been cancelled. The learned Mines Commissioner, after taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, has passed the order dated 19.01.2024 in Revision Case No.20 of 2020 by disallowing the revision preferred by the petitioner.

¶51

3. Against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No.20 of 2020 and order dated 08.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶52

¶53

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶54

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶55

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned orders: -

¶56

(i) There is no order said to be an order in the eye of law said to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, rather, only by making reference of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau dated 03.02.2020, the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar has communicated the same, as contained in memo no.230/M dated 08.02.2020.

¶57

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to pass an order for termination of the lease deed under the provision of Section 22(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶58

(iii) The order dated 03.02.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner as has been brought on record in the counter affidavit approving the decision taken by the District Mining Officer is being considered to be an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner but the same cannot be an order in the eye of law, unless, the said decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner having been communicated to the litigant concerned, the writ petitioner herein.

¶59

¶60

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶61

(iv) The order cancelling the mining lease, since has not been passed by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the entire action of the respondent authority in cancelling the lease deed to carry out the mining operation is per se illegal and as such, not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶62

Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-State

¶63

5. Per contra , learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned orders: -

¶64

(i) It is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner to take the ground that the District Mining Officer has passed an order which is not an order, said to be in the eye of law, rather, the decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the light of the power conferred under Section 22(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004.

¶65

(ii) The District Mining Officer, Palamau, vide order as contained in memo no.230/M dated 08.02.2020 has communicated the decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the light of the provision of Section 22(5) of the Rules, 2004.

¶66

¶67

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶68

(iii) It has been contended that the power which is to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, within the meaning of Rule 22(5) of the Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2017, is not stigmatic order, rather, the same is to be exercised if any terms and conditions of the lease deed are being evaded or not followed.

¶69

(iv) It has also been contended that the amount of royalty fairly for a long period, i.e., from 20162019 has not been paid as required to be paid and even though, the 30 days’ time was given as per the notice available on record to make payment of the said amount but even then, the said amount has not been paid, hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, based upon the proposal given by the District Mining Officer, in such a admitted fact, has approved the said proposal and as such, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has not taken the decision.

¶70

(v) The ground has been taken that the moment, the noting which has been placed by the District Mining Officer of the concerned District in a case of admitted fact of non-deposit of the

¶71

¶72

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶73

amount of royalty, as required to be deposited as per the statutory provision and if it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District and in such circumstances, if the lease deed is being terminated, the same cannot be said to be improper in the garb of the ground which is being taken of incompetency of the District Mining Officer, Palamau, rather, the District Mining Officer, Palamau, vide communication dated 08.02.2020 has only communicated the decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner dated 03.02.2020.

¶74

(vi) It has been submitted that the fact about nondeposit of the amount of royalty, since, is not in dispute, rather, it is the admitted case, since, the certificate proceeding has also been ordered to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of the said amount, as such, in such a admitted position, it is not available for the writ petitioner to take the ground that he is not owing any liability to make payment of amount of royalty and if in such a admitted fact, the lease deed has been

¶75

¶76

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶77

terminated, then, the ground which is being taken regarding the notice, is not worth to be considered.

¶78

6. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner, communicated by the District Mining Officer and the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 19.01.2024 passed in Revision Case No.20 of 2020, therefore, need no interference.

¶79

Analysis

¶80

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, gone through the findings recorded by the Mines Commissioner in the order dated 19.01.2024 and the factual aspect as available in the pleadings made in the writ petition and various documents as appended in the writ petition, counter affidavit and other affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.

¶81

8. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the incompetency of the Deputy Commissioner, since, the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any separate order, rather in the file, the approval so given by the District Mining Officer, Palamau has been approved on 03.02.2020.

¶82

9. This Court, is to consider in the aforesaid background that merely because the Deputy Commissioner has not passed an order, rather, the decision so taken on 03.02.2020 by the

¶83

¶84

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶85

Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, has been communicated by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, vide communication dated 08.02.2020, can it be quashed and set aside merely on that ground, in a available fact of admitted position of non-deposit of the amount of royalty, as required to be deposited as per the statutory provision .

¶86

10. Adverting to the fact of the case, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was holding a minor mineral mining lease of stone in Palamau District, Jharkhand for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 26.02.2014 under the JMMC Rules, 2014 on certain terms and conditions, for ready reference, the relevant terms and conditions of the lease deed are being referred as under:-

¶87

“भाग - V

¶88

इनखननपट्टाकीसुर्ቌितलगानतथास्वामिस्व

¶89

1. ननयत लगान अथवा स्वामिस्व , इनिें जो भी ज्यादा हो का भुगतान -

¶90

सिाहताा जैसा ननर्ााररत करे , पट्टार्ारक उस भाग के उपबंर् 2 िें सुर्ቌित ननयि लगान अथवा इस भाग के उपबंर् 3 िेंसुर्ቌित स्वामिस्य , इन दोनोंिेंसेजोभीज्यादाहोउसका्ቔैिामसक अवधर् अथवाअ्ቖार्वार्षाकअवधर्केमलए भुगतानकरेंगे।यदद खननपट्टा िेंएकसेअधर्कखननज केदोहनकीऐसीिे्ቔ िेंअनुिनतदीगईहै तो सिाहताा्ቚ त्येक खननज के मलए अलग - अलग ननयत लगान ननर्ााररतकरसकतेहैं।

¶91

2. ननयिलगानकेभुगतानकीदरएवंप्ቖर्नत -

¶92

तारीख 26/02/2014 सेइस्ቚप्ቔ िेंउपबंर्के्ቚावर्ानोंकेअव्यर्ीन ननयत लगान कीदर तथा भुगतान करने का तरीका खनन पटा के अस्स्तत्व िेंरहनेकेदौरान पटार्ारक सिाहतााअथवा ्ቚदान करने वाले्ቚाधर्कारीकोवषा 2014 के 10 वेंााह के ... 15 वेंतारीख को

¶93

¶94

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶95

चार बराबर्ቔैिामसक ककश्तोंअथवा्ቚत्येक वषाकेपट्टा अवर्ीतक िाह - अ्ቚैल , जुलाई , अक्टुबर एवं जनवरी के 15 वें तारीख अथवा्ቚ त्येक वषालगान , जोइस अनुसूचीकेभाग 8 िेंवर्णात्ቚनत एकड़ भूमि की दर तथा सेइस ननयि के अनुसूची 8 (9000/- रू०्ቚनत एकड़्ቚनत वषा ) केअधर्सूचना्ቖवारा जोसरकार्ቖवारा सिय सिय परसंशोर्नकेअध्यार्ीनहोगीकाभुगतानकरेंगें। 3. स्वामिस्वकीदरतथाभुगतानकरनेकातरीका - इसभागिें्ቚावर्ानोंकेअध्यर्ीनखननपट्टार्ारकों , झारखण्डलघु खननज सिनुदान ननयिावली 2004 की्ቖ र्वतीय अनूसूची िें सियानुसार वर्णात दर सेखनन पट्टा िे्ቔ सेउसके्ቖवारा खननज खननजोंकोननकालनेकेमलए्ቚनतवषाके्ቚत्येकिाहिें 15 वेंतारीख कोचारबराबरककश्तोंिेंराज्यसरकारकोकरभुगतानकरेंगे। 4. भूतललगानकाभुगतान -

¶96

पट्टार्ारकउस्ललर्खतभूमिकेसभीभागजो्ቚनतएकड़्ቚनतवषाकी दरसेअथवाभूमिपरकब्जाकेमलएसियसियपरसिाहताा्ቖवारा ननर्ााररतदर अथवा ऐसा कब्जाहोनेकेबाद कीअवधर्सेएक एकड सेकि भूमि होनेकीस्स्थनत िेंआनुपानतक दर सेअथवा जब तक वह भूमि कब्जा बाहर नहोतब तक केउपयोग केमलए अथवा जहां तक संभवहोउपयोग िेंआनेकेबादइसकेिूल रूप िेंवापस लाने तक ( स्जसके मलए्ቚत्येक्ቔैिामसक अवधर्अ्ቖर्वार्षाक तारीख जो अब सेपहलेननस्ववत वार्षाक ननयत लगान केमलए ननर्ााररत ककया गया है ) केमलए राज्य सरकार कोलगान का भुगतान करेगा। बषते कक स्जन सडकोअथवा िागोंपर स्जनिेंनागररकोंका पहुंच का पूरा अधर्कारहैउसकेकब्जोंकेमलएकोईलगानदेयनहींहोगा। 5. पट्टार्ारक

¶97

उपयुाक्त लगान तथा स्वामिस्व के भुगतान के अनतररक्त खनन पट्टा िे्ቔ िें खननजों के उत्खनन, दोहन करने के मलए सिुधचत ्ቚ ाधर्कारी को सभी सेस कर तथा स्थानीय बकाये का भुगतान सिुधचत एवं ननयमित रूप से करेंगे।”

¶98

11. It is evident from the lease deed that one of the terms and

¶99

conditions was that the amount of royalty is to be paid.

¶100

¶101

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶102

12. The reference of the provisions of Rule 22(5) and Rule 27(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 are also need to be made herein, since, it has been referred in the communication dated 08.02.2020 passed by the District Mining Officer, Palamau and as such, the same are being quoted as under respectively: -

¶103

“ 22(5) यदद ननयि 29 के तहत पट्टार्ारी

¶104

लगान / स्वामिस्वकाभुगतानसियपरनहींकरेंअथवाइन ननयिों अथवा्ቚ प्ቔ ई के उललेर्खत ककनहीं शतों का उललंघन करता हैतोसिि अधर्कारीइस सूचना कोपाने के 30 ददनोंके भीतर प‌ट्टार्ारी को लगान / स्वामिस्व के भुगतान कर देने का नोदटस देगा ताकक इन शतों का उललंघन नहींहो , और यदद लगान / स्वामिस्व का भुगतान नहीं होता है तो सिाहताा अथवा स्वीकृत करने वाले पदाधर्कारी , इसके मलए पट्टार्ारी के र्वरू्ቖर् ककसी कायावाही पर्ቚनतकूल्ቚभाव डाले बबना , उसके प‌ट्टा को सिाप्त कर सकतेहैंताकक उसकीसुर्ቌित रामश को पूणा अथवाआमशकरूपसेजब्तकरसकतेहैं।”

¶105

“ 27(2) सिाहताासुनवाईका सिुधचत अवसर ददए जानेके बादखननपट्टेकोसिाप्तकरसकतेहैं , यददपट्टेर्ारीने खननपट्टेकेशतोंएवंबंर्ेजोंकाउललंघनककयाहै।”

¶106

13. It is evident from the provision of Rule 22(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 that the power has been conferred upon the District Mining Officer to give 30 days’ notice to the lease holder for payment of royalty and rectify the irregularities which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement and if within the period of 30 days, no efforts are being taken, then the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is to cancel the lease deed without having any stigma.

¶107

¶108

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶109

14. The provision of Section 27(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 also confers power to the Deputy Commissioner, to terminate the lease deed on the ground of violation of condition of lease.

¶110

15. Here, the admitted case is that it is not a case of decision so taken in the public interest, rather, payment of royalty, since, has not been paid within the period of 30 days as required to be followed as per the provision of Rule 22(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 and as such, the same was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau by the District Mining Officer, Palamau and the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, on being satisfied on the basis of the admitted fact of non-payment of the amount of royalty, has approved the said proposal of the District Mining Officer, which was communicated vide communication dated 08.02.2020.

¶111

16. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the communication dated 08.02.2020 having been approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 03.02.2020, has approached to the Mines Commissioner but the Mines Commissioner has also by its order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Revision Case No.20/2020, declined to interfere with such decision by taking into consideration the fact that the irregularity has been found during the lease inspection of the petitioner, as also, in spite of the issuance of the legal notice, the same was not responded and further, non-payment of due demand against the petitioner.

¶112

¶113

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶114

17. The foremost ground which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has not passed an order, rather, the proposal given by the District Mining Officer has duly been approved by the Deputy Commissioner as on 03.02.2020 and as such, the same cannot be construed to be an order in the eye of law.

¶115

18. We are not disagreeing with such contention that the noting in the file cannot be given the identity of order said to be passed in the eye of law, unless the same is to be communicated to the litigant concerned.

¶116

19. But herein, the aforesaid position of law is to be taken into consideration in the light of the admitted fact of admission of the writ petitioner in not rectifying the irregularity in carrying out the mining operation contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶117

20. One of the conditions which has not been disputed is the nonpayment of the amount of royalty.

¶118

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the royalty amount for the period from 2016 to 2019 has not been paid, as such, the demand has been raised and now, the certificate proceeding is also going on.

¶119

22. The aforesaid aspect of the matter, thus, clarifies that the amount of royalty, as agreed by the petitioner, has not been paid.

¶120

¶121

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶122

23. The position of law regarding the competency in not passing an order by the Deputy Commissioner is to be tested in the backdrop of the fact that the terms and conditions of the lease deed admittedly have not been followed by not making payment of amount of royalty, the statutory amount as required to be paid mandatorily as per the statutory provision.

¶123

24. The issue of competence of the Deputy Commissioner even if accepted by this Court and on the aforesaid ground, if the matter would be remanded before the Deputy Commissioner for passing an order, then, the question is that;

¶124

“whether there is scope of passing of different order in an admitted fact of non-deposit of the statutory amount and in such circumstances, is there any chance to take a different view by the Deputy Commissioner.”

¶125

25. Even if in such circumstances, the matter would be remitted, will it not lead to futile exercise and empty formality, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, (2004) 4 SCC 281 , wherein at paragraph no.64 it has been held which reads as under:

¶126

“ 64 . Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these

¶127

¶128

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶129

appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

¶130

26. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors. , (2015) 8 SCC 519 , their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being reproduced as under:

¶131

“ 39 . We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason- perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker.”

¶132

¶133

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶134

27. It has been laid down therein that if the factual aspect is not in dispute which impliedly means that there is no chance of change in the outcome then in such circumstances, principle of natural justice if ordered to be followed then the same will amount to empty formality and futile exercise.

¶135

28. In the aforesaid judgments, the empty formality and futile exercise have also been dealt with wherein it has been interpreted that the parties since are knowing the result very well due to undisputed fact leading not to change in the outcome then providing an opportunity of chance to rebut, will have no bearing in the outcome and if in such circumstances, the opportunity will be given, the same has been considered to be an empty formality and futile exercise.

¶136

29. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law and in an admitted case as has been admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of royalty has not been paid and as such, even if the matter would have been remitted before the Deputy Commissioner for passing an order said to be in the eye of law and after being communicated to him, since, there is no chance of change in the factual situation due to non-deposit of the amount of royalty and as such, the same will be nothing but a futile exercise.

¶137

30. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with the power under Section 22(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, to

¶138

¶139

2026:JHHC:1142-DB

¶140

terminate the lease on account of non-payment of royalty, which is to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner on the proposal being given by the District Mining Officer on the verification of the factual aspect and based upon that inspection report, the Deputy Commissioner has approved the said proposal although in the file but the same has been communicated to the writ petitioner by the District Mining Officer, as would be evident from the communication dated 08.02.2020 and as such, it cannot be said that the order has been passed with incompetency.

¶141

31. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner, based upon the inspection report of the District Mining Officer and the order so passed by the Mines Commissioner under its revisional jurisdiction, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from an error in the admitted fact of non-deposit of the amount of royalty, violating the terms and conditions of the lease deed.

¶142

32. Further, it again needs to refer herein that the power conferred under Rule 22(5) of the JMMC, Rules, 2004 is not an stigmatic order and after giving 30 days statutory time for payment of royalty and rectifying the irregularities and even thereafter, notices have been given but the same has not been responded, as has been taken note by the revisional authority,

¶143

¶144