M/S. Neha Black Stone, Thro Its Proprietor Md. Akhtar Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand, Thro Its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

2026:JHHC:2687-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.272 of 2026

M/s. Neha Black Stone, a proprietorship firm, having its office at Barhet, P.O. and P.S. Barhet, District Sahibganj, State of Jharkhand, through its proprietor Md. Akhtar Alam, son of Late Zahid Hussain, resident of Barhet, P.O. and P.S. Barhet, District Sahebganj

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand.

¶10

District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj.

¶11

Circle Officer, Pattna, having its office at District Collectorate, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj.

¶12

.......... Respondents.

¶13

----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG

¶16

¶17

Order No.02 Date: 03.02.2026

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we take this petition for final disposal.

¶20

This petition challenges the order dated 25^th August, 2025, made by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahebganj, in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No.17 of 2024-25, raising a demand by way of penalty of Rs. 1,77,92,892.00 towards alleged illegal extraction of minor mineral beyond the leasehold area.

¶21

1

¶22

2026:JHHC:2687-DB

¶23

The petitioner has assailed the impugned order, primarily on the following three grounds:-

¶24

a. The Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make such an order, given the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Bhagwan Stone Works vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(C) No.322 of 2025 decided on 15^th July, 2025;

¶25

b. The proceedings which led to the issuance of the impugned order were initiated under Rule 11(5) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which was declared as ultra vires by this Court in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(C) No.6788 of 2023 decided on 22^nd July, 2024; and

¶26

c. The impugned order is based on an alleged inspection conducted without notice and, consequently, behind the petitioner's or its representatives' backs. Thus, there was a patent failure of natural justice.

¶27

The record in this case suggests that the impugned order is based on an inspection conducted on 29^th April, 2023. There is no record of any notice being served upon the petitioner or its representatives. The principles of natural justice would require that a notice of the inspection be given, and once an inspection report is prepared, a copy of the same be furnished so that the petitioner can offer its comments on the same.

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:2687-DB

¶30

Issues of constitutional validity or ultra vires can always be kept open, but they need not be decided in this petition if it can be disposed of on the ground of a failure of natural justice in this particular instance.

¶31

Since we are satisfied that there was a failure of natural justice, we quash and set aside the impugned order on this ground by granting the respondents liberty to initiate fresh action if they so choose in accordance with the law by adhering to the principles of natural justice and fair play. All contentions regarding the power of the Deputy Commissioner and the vires of Rule 54(6) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 are kept open to be decided at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding should the same be warranted.

¶32

This petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms and without any order for costs.

¶33

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

¶34

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶35

3^rd February, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 09.02.2026

¶36

3

M/S. Neha Black Stone, Thro Its Proprietor Md. Akhtar Alam v. the State of Jharkhand, Thro Its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Neha Black Stone, Thro Its Proprietor Md. Akhtar Alam v. the State of Jharkhand, Thro Its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Shankar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Green Power System Represented by Its Representative Ashok Kumar Verma, Vs the State of Jharkhand, Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Har Narayan Lakhotia Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Kamladityya Construction Private Limited through Its One of the Directors Mr Aditya Kumar Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Dhanbad

M/S Maa Chhinmastika Construction, through Its Partner Kumar Sanjay Sinha, Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Drinking Water and Sanitation

Samir Tudu Vs the Chairman Canara Bank