Koderma v. District
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35405-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2841of 2024 ----- Vinayak Minerals through its Partner Parmeshwar Mehta, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Dev Narayan Mehta, Resident of village- Nawadih, P.O. Behradih, P.S. Domchanch, District- Koderma (Jharkhand) … … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.-Koderma, Versus District- Koderma. 3. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.-Koderma, District- Koderma. … … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner For the Respondents ------ ------- :Mr.Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate :Ms. Rashika Bhardwaj, Advocate :Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate :Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G. Order No.07/Dated 26th November, 2025 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to the petitioner in terms of the order of sanction contained in Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016 issued under signature of the District Mining Officer, Koderma, (respondent no. 3) in respect to the land being Plot Nos. 672,691,671,673 and 690 (Part), measuring an area 0.64 acres, situated under Mauza- Nawada, P.S. Markachcho within District- Koderma, by giving the benefits of the period elapsed with effect from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, during which the matter concerning to renewal of the aforesaid lease of the petitioner remain pending. Brief facts of the case 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under:- Page 1 2025:JHHC:35405-DB It is a case of the petitioner, who is one of the partners of
Legal Reasoning
Vinayak Minerals, a firm granted a mining lease for stone quarrying on 0.64 acres of land, comprising Plot Nos. 672, 691, 671, 673, and 690 (Part) in Mauza-Nawada, P.S.-Markachcho, District- Koderma. The lease was originally granted for a term of 10 years, from 30.11.2003 to 29.11.2013. During this period, the petitioner adhered to all rules and regulations, including the regular payment of royalty to the Government. The petitioner refers to the extract of the lease deed granted from 30.11.2003 to 29.11.2013 in support of this. 3. Before expiry of the lease, the petitioner applied for renewal on 21.06.2013, which was duly acknowledged by the District Mining Officer, Koderma. After receiving all necessary reports and verifying the same, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the renewal on 18.02.2014, extending the lease for another 10 years (from 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2023). However, due to delay in executing the lease deed, the lease was deemed revoked as per the statutory rules. 4. The petitioner challenged the order of deemed revocation before the Mines Commissioner in Rev. Case No. 59 of 2014. On 27.08.2014, the Mines Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the order of revocation and directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order within 60 days. Despite this order, the matter remained pending, and finally, on 15.02.2016, the Deputy Commissioner renewed the mining lease for a term of 10 years. The petitioner was informed of this renewal through Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016. 5. In compliance with the directions in the memo, the petitioner deposited the prescribed surface rent and dead rent for the entire period of lease, which expired on 28.11.2023. The lease deed was executed on 04.04.2016, but strangely, the term of the lease was not Page 2 2025:JHHC:35405-DB mentioned in the agreement, despite the fact that the renewal order was passed on 15.02.2016 and the lease deed was executed on 04.04.2016, the sanctioning order assigned the lease term as effective from the expiry of the previous lease (29.11.2013), extending for another 10 years, valid until 28.11.2023. This period of 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, during which no valid lease existed, was retrospectively included in the lease, causing the petitioner significant hardship. 6. The petitioner had applied for renewal in a timely manner on 21.06.2013, but without any justified reason, the execution of the lease deed was delayed from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, resulting the petitioner being unable to operate the mining during this period. Furthermore, although the petitioner paid dead rent in advance for this gap period, mining operations could not be carried out, depriving the petitioner of the full benefit of the lease, despite no fault on their part. Submission made on behalf of the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant writ petition be disposed of in terms of W.P.(C) No. 4950 of 2024, as both cases involve the same issue. 8. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that due to the callous and lethargic approach of the respondents, the mining activities of the petitioner remained non-functional from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, thereby violating the provisions of Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The petitioner submits that during this period, despite all efforts to renew the Page 3 2025:JHHC:35405-DB mining lease, no action was taken by the respondents, resulting in a severe loss to the petitioner. 9. Further, Mr. Ojha submits that the petitioner has invested substantial amounts in the renewal process, including legal expenses and the payment of dead rent, in good faith, expecting the timely renewal of the lease. However, as the period from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016 was not accounted for and the lease was not operational, the petitioner has suffered irreparable financial loss and injury. If the period, during which the lease was non- operational, is not considered and the benefits of lapsing period are not granted, the petitioner will face an unjust loss. 10. Mr. Ojha also submits that the petitioner has not moved this Hon’ble Court earlier in the matter, as the petitioner believed that the issue could be resolved through administrative means. However, in the absence of any meaningful action from the respondents and given the ongoing financial loss, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court for the reliefs, as sought for. The petitioner further submits that no efficacious and alternative remedy exists other than filing this writ petition for the reliefs sought herein. 11. The reference of some of the orders has been made wherein while disposing of the writ petition, the authorities have been directed to consider the case of the parties concerned as per the judgment passed in the case of M/s. R.P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022]. 12. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that direction may be passed upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to the petitioner in terms of the order contained in Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016. Page 4 2025:JHHC:35405-DB Submission made on behalf of the Respondent 13. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G., appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the present writ petition is of the year 2024 seeking therein a direction which pertains to the year 2013. 14. It has been contended that the argument which has been advanced that the delay in not renewing the lease from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016 is attributed to the State but the same cannot be said to be proper for its consideration, reason being that if that be so,
Decision
then why the writ petitioner waited upto the year 2024, i.e., after lapse of the period of lease, rather, the petitioner ought to have approached this Court immediately after renewal of the lease as was granted vide order dated 15.02.2016. But, he has accepted the said renewal and when the said period has lapsed, the present writ petition has been filed. 15. It has further been submitted that the reason for filing the present writ petition is that there is embargo in renewal by virtue of amendment having been incorporated in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (amended in the year 2017) as per the provision as contained under Section 9 thereof. Consideration 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order passed by this Court. 17. The undisputed fact in this case is that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner to carry out the mining operation. Before expiry of the period of lease, the application was filed by the petitioner for its renewal from 29.11.2013. The aforesaid application has been decided by the authority by virtue of memo Page 5 2025:JHHC:35405-DB No. 287 dated 04.03.2016, by which the lease was renewed for a period of 10 years from the date of expiry of the earlier period of lease. 18. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid decision as contained in Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016 and has started carrying out the mining operation without any demur. 19. But, after end of the period of lease by virtue of the order of renewal dated 15.02.2016, has come to this Court seeking a direction by way of issuance of mandamus to extend the period of mining lease. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in M/s. R.P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra). 21. Before proceeding to examine the factual aspect as available in the present case, this Court needs to go through the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid case. 22. The factual aspect which has been discussed, needs to be referred herein which is available at paragraph-5 of the M/s. R.P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra) for ready reference, paragraph-5 is being referred here in :- 5.”The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to non-relaxation of the period from 06.09.2012 to 07.09.2015 on account of non- issuance of the Environmental Clearance Certificate by the concerned authority and this fact has not been considered by the concerned respondent who has to decide the issue at the first instance”. 23. Hence, in M/s. R.P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra) case, the grievance of the petitioner was with respect to the non-relaxation on account of non-issuance Page 6 2025:JHHC:35405-DB of the Environmental Clearance Certificate by the concerned authority. 24. It is evident from the factual aspect of the present case that the revisional authority, while disposing of the revision being Revision Case No. 59 of 2014 vide order dated 27.08.2014 has set aside the deemed rejection order with a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to examine the issue and pass necessary order on merit. 25. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, after perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner and in terms of order dated 27.08.2014 passed in Revision Case No. 59 of 2014, had ordered for renewal of the lease, which was valid upto 28.11.2023. 26. It is evident from paragraph 9 of the pleading made in the writ petition that after the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Revision Case No. 59 of 2014, the matter remains pending and finally on 15.02.2016, the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma renewing the mining lease of the petitioners. 27. Hence, factual aspect of the present case, therefore, is quite different to that of the fact governing the case of M/s. R.P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2022]. 28. Herein, the factual aspect which is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that by virtue of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of the observation made by the Revisional Authority, the lease was renewed vide order dated 15.02.2016, communicated vide Memo dated 04.03.2016, as contained in Memo No. 287, which the writ petitioner has willingly accepted Page 7 2025:JHHC:35405-DB and has carried out the mining operation in terms of the said order of renewal. 29. The petitioner, thereafter, has approached this Court by filing the writ petition after lapse of the period of lease in a situation where law does not permit for renewal as per the amendment incorporated in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by way of insertion after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Others reported in 2014(6) SCC 590 30. Before proceeding further, it needs to refer herein Rule 9(1) (क), 9(ङ), 9(च) and 9(12) in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 amended in the year 2017, for ready reference the aforesaid provisions are being referred herein :- 9. खनन प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ त करने हेतु आवेदन (1) (क) रै यती भूमम के 03.00 हे० ्ቌे्ቔ एवं उससे कम ्ቌे्ቔ पर प्र, मोरम एवं मम्ሾी लघु खमनज के खनन प्ሾा उपायु्ሹ ्ቛारा ्ቭीकृ त मकया जाएगा। पर्ቌु मक सभी सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान (संशोधन) मनयमावली, 2019 के मनयम-6 (ख) के पर्ቌु में उ्लेखखत ्ቌे्ቔ एवं खमनज को छोड़कर सभी रै यती ्ቌे्ቔ पर बालू छोड़कर अ्य सभी लघु खमनज के खनन प्ሾा की ्ቭीकृ मत झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज नीलामी मनयमावली, 2017 में मनरूमपत ्ቚावधानों के अ्ቌगगत इलै्ሴामनक नीलामी के मा्ቖम से मनदेशक, खान के ्ቛारा मकया जाएगा। पर्ቌु रा्ቋ सरकार आव्िकतानुसार नीलामी हेतु उपायु्ሹ को भी ्ቚामधकृ त कर सकती है। 2 [पर्ቌु मक अमधसूचना सं्ቅा-1653/एम०, रााँची, मदनांक-06 मसत्ቚर, 2016 के ्ቛारा अमधसूमचत 31 (इ्ሹीस) खमनजों एवं, ्ቇेनाइट प्र खमनज, माबगल, बलुआ प्र एवं सजावटी प्र आमद के मामले में नीलामी से पूवग खमनज की उपल्ቓता एवं गुणव्ቈा की जााँच कर ्ाक मचखित करने का कायग भूत् मनदेशालय, झारख्ቄ अथवा Page 8 2025:JHHC:35405-DB रा्ቋ सरकार ्ቛारा ्ቚामधकृ त अ्य अ्ऽेषण ्ቚमत्ान ्ቛारा मकया जाएगा। 1["पर्ቌुक रा्ቋा्ቌगगत ढीबरा ड्ቘ में पाये जाने वाले अ्ቝख खमनज, मजसका ्ቤवसामयक मू्ि हो, के भंडार/ड्ቘ का मन्ቡादन झारख्ቄ रा्ቋ खमनज मवकास मनगम मल0 के मा्ቖम से मकया जाए, मजसके बावत मागगदशगक मसद्ांतों का मनरूपण मवभाग ्ቛारा मकया जाएगा। 2 [सामुदामयक स्ቘमत यथा पुल, सड़क, तालाब, नदी, भवन, धाममगक, ्ाशान घाट, पहाड़ आमद की सुर्ቌा के मलए रा्ቋ सरकार ्ቛारा मनगगत मनयमो, वन पयागवरण एवं जलवायु पररवतगन मवभाग ्ቛारा स्थामपत माप- द्ቄो के अनुरूप सुर्ቌा ्ቚ्ቌे्ቔ मचखित करना होगा, मजसमें खमनजो का खनन कायग नहीं होगा। “9(ङ) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे० ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रै यती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा् वैसे आवेदन प्ቔ मजसमें इस अमधसूचना मनगगत होने की मतमथ से पूवग झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान मनयमावली, 2004 के मनयम 11 अंतगगत Letter of Intent (आशय का प्ቔ) मनगगत हो चुका है, उसे इस अमधसूचना के मनगगत होने की मतमथ से 180 मदनों के अंदर पयागवरण ्ቭीकृ मत एवं खनन योजन अमनवायग रूप से सममपगत करना होगा, अ्यथा उनका आवेदन ्ቭतः अ्ቭीकृ त हो जाएगा। 4 [ पर्ቌु झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान मनयमावली (यथा संशोमधत) 2019 के मनयम-9(1) (ङ) के तहत उिें 180 मदनों के अंदर खनन योजना एवं पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत सममपगत करना था, पर्ቌु आवेदक की गलती न रहने के बावजूद मनधागररत समय-सीमा के तहत खनन योजना एवं पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत उ्ሹ समय पररमध में ्ቚा् नहीं हो सका। फलतः उनका खनन प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ त नहीं हो सका। ऐसे मामले में खान आयु्ሹ झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान (संशोधन) मनयमावली, 2019 के मनयम-9(1)(ङ) के तहत आवेदक के आवेदन को गुण-दोष के आधार पर मनणगय लेंगे।] 9(च) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे० ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रै यती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा् खनन पटे को जो करकामेव व एवं पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत खनन योजना ्ቚा् नही राहत वैसे खर कालमतरोमहत हो गये हो, उनके प्ሾे की अवमध प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ मत/नवीनीकरण की मतमथ से 31 माचग, 2022 तक के मलए अवमध मव्ቜाररत मानी जाएगी, बशते मक अमधसूचना की मतमथ के पूवग Page 9 2025:JHHC:35405-DB खनन प्ሾा की अ्ቭीकृ मत/र्ቌ/्ቤयगत होने का आदेश, नहीं पाररत मकया गया है, पर्ቌु वैसे खानन प्ሾे पर कोई खनन तब तक नहीं मकया जा सके गा, जब तक खनन हेतु आव्िक पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत/वन एवं पयागवरण मवभाग की ्ቭीकृ मत/खनन योजना ्ቭीकृ मत ्ቚा् नही ं हो जाता है। आवेदक को सभी वांमछत अनाप्ቈी 180 मदनों के अंदर सममपगत कना होगा।" 1 [ पर्ቌु ्ቇेनाईट खमनज के लख्ቚत/कालमतरोमहत खनन प्ሾा का अवमध मव्ቜार/नवीकरण में खनन प्ሾा की ्यूनतम अवमध The Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999 के ्ቚावधानों के अनुरूप होगा। पर्ቌु वैसे ्ቇेनाईट खमनज के मलए लख्ቚत सभी मामले अमधसूचना की मतमथ से 06 माहों के अ्ቌगगत अवमध मव्ቜार/नवीकरण मकया जाना होगा, बशतें ऐसे आवेदकों ्ቛारा सभी वैधामनक अनापम्ቈ/्ቭीकृ मत ्ቚा् की गयी हो] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3[9 (12) मनयम-9 (1) (घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9(1) (छ) तथा 9(10) पूवग से ्ቭीकृ त/आवमदत लघु खमनज के 5.00 हे्ሴेयर ्ቌे्ቔ से कम ्ቌे्ቔ पर भी लागू होंगें। 31. It is evident that the provision of deemed renewal has been done away by the statutory provision subsequently by virtue of the amendment in 2017 and 2019 in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 32. The provision as inserted by way of amendment in the Rule 2004 as amended in 2017 and 2019, has statutorily commanded that, the mining operation will only be allowed to be carried out by virtue of auction and not renewal. 33. The other fact which is different to the facts of W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2022 is that the petitioner, has accepted the order of renewal up to 28.11.2023 vide order dated 15.02.2016 without any protest and, thereafter, on expiry of the period of renewed lease, he has Page 10 2025:JHHC:35405-DB directly approached this Court by filing writ petition after lapse of about 11 years since even accepting the prayer of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition, the cause of action in favour of the writ petitioner will be said to be arisen in the year 2013 or 2016. 34. Further, there is no pleading or it is not the case of the writ petitioner that any litigation or any representation was made before the authority for modifying the order dated 15.02.2016 for renewal of the lease by shifting the period commencing from 29.11.2013 or for extending the period for three years. 35. The reference of the settled position of law is required to be made that a judgment is having no universal applicability, rather, its applicability is to be tested on the basis of factual aspect governing each and every case individually. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu& Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:- "47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed." 36. This Court, is of the view after going through the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2022 wherein there is no adjudication of the right of the parties, save and except, the liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to file representation. 37. The question of consideration of representation will only come if there is any legal vested right said to be available, but herein, as Page 11 2025:JHHC:35405-DB per the insertion in the statutory provision by way of amendment, when there is no provision to renew, then how can it be said that the writ petitioner is having vested legal right for consideration of the issue, even if there is any laches on the part of the State. 38. This Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is settled that the said power can only be exercised either in two occasions, if there is infringement of fundamental right or if there is violation of legal vested right. 39. "Vested right" has been defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13, which read hereunder as:- "11.The word "vested" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as: "Vested.-fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ’vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute ’vested rights’." 12. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, "vested" is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. 13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed. 40. Further, so far as the question of taking away the vested right is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 at paragraph-24, which reads hereunder as :- "24. In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned Page 12 2025:JHHC:35405-DB provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon[AIR 1967 SC 1889], B.S. Vedera [AIR 1969 SC 118] and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [(1983) 2 SCC 33]." 41. Since this Court has referred the statutory provision as inserted by way of amendment in Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 where there is no provision of renewal, hence, even though the liberty will be granted to the writ petitioner to approach the authority, then the question will be for what purpose when the result is known to this Court in view of the amendment of Rule -9 contained in Rules, 2004, as amended in the year 2017 and 2019, no such direction can be issued to the respondents. 42. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that it is not a fit case where any command is to be issued upon the State for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner. 43. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. 44. Pending disposed of. interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 26.11.2025 Umesh/Abhishek A.F.R. Page 13