The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 2423 of 2021 ---- M/s Devkabai Velji represented by authorized signatory Rajesh Dhirajlal Atha. Versus .…..Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House Doranda, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 4. The Director, Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Second Floor, Engineers Hostel-2, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …..Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 389 of 2022 while submitting that in a similar issue, this Court had directed the concerned authority to issue mining -3-
Arguments
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Respondents. : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.G.-II -------- -------- In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to accord permission to the petitioner to remove the excavated ore during the currency of the lease period i.e. 31.3.2020 from the Ajitaburu Iron & Manganese Ore Mines of Ghatkuri R.F. in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, necessary hearing for grant of which has also commenced though no final order of adjudication has been passed by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to restrain and defer the E-Auction Notifications No.02/2021-22 issued for grant of mining lease over Ajitaburu Iron & Manganese Ore Mines of Ghatkuri R.F. where the excavated ores of the petitioner has been lying. 3. At the outset, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that so far as prayer no. (ii) is concerned, with respect to an order of restrainment regarding E-auction Notification No.02/2021-22 is concerned, he is not pressing the said prayer. 4. The factual aspects reveal that the petitioner is a son of the ex-lessee and one of the successor in interest of M/s Devkabai Velji, which was initially granted 12/31.1.2024 2. Heard the parties. -2- a mining lease of Iron Ore in Ajitaburu Iron & Manganese Ore Mines of Ghatkuri R.F. over an area of 115.20 acres (46.62 Hectares) for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 4.8.1953. Later on, Manganese was also found within the leasehold area and was added vide indenture dated 4.10.1958 which also was registered on 23.10.1959. The renewal application submitted by the lessee was extended by executing a supplementary lease deed of extension on 1.3.2017 in favour of the successor in interest of Smt. Devkabai Velji which was registered vide deed no. 123/119 dated 3.3.2017. As per the lease deed, the period of mining lease has been extended till 31.3.2020 in terms of Section 8A (6) of the 2015 Amendment Act. After obtaining the statutory clearance as required under law, the mining operations were resumed on 1.3.2017 and thereafter the petitioner had carried out mining activities and had paid rent, royalty etc. on time. The mining lease expired on 31.3.2020 and the lessee in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals)Concession Rules, 2016 had applied for removal of mined out iron ore and manganese ore during the currency of the lease deed. The said application of the erstwhile lessee was forwarded to the Director (Mines) Department of Mines and Geology, Jharkhand for necessary orders pursuant to which the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa had ordered for joint inspection of mined out mineral during currency of the lease and accordingly a joint measurement of mineral of stock was conducted and signed on 19.5.2021. Vide office order no. 25/M dated 26.8.2020 a four-member committee was constituted for verification of the mineral stock available at the mine by way of field inspection and accordingly the committee once again conducted a field inspection as well as examination of the documents and returns of the erstwhile lessee. The petitioner pursuant to the direction of the Director (Mines), Jharkhand vide letter dated 15.10.2020 had appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 19.10.2020 on which date he was directed to submit a list of documents which the petitioner had complied with. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though a joint inspection was carried out and a field inspection was also subsequently carried out by the four- member committee and despite the petitioner having submitted all the requisite documents and had completed all the formalities no order for removal of the excavated ores had been passed in terms of Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals)Concession Rules, 2016. 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to an
Decision
challans on production of the necessary documents and therefore this writ application be also disposed of in terms of the said order. 7. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.G.-II has also accepted the fact that the case of the present petitioner is covered by the order passed in W.P.C. No. 389 of 2022. 8. the relevant of which is quoted hereinunder:- In W.P.C. No. 389 of 2022, the following order was passed on 27.7.2023, “8. In course of arguments even on repeated query from the Court all that Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to learned Advocate General could point out is that under Rule 12 (1) (gg) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules 2016 a period of six months has been provided for removing the minerals mined from the leasehold area during the lease period. 9. While so, we do not find any reason why an order granting permission to the Company for removing the minerals in respect of which return has been filed and quantity of which has been assessed in the Joint Inspection Report be not passed in the present proceeding. 10. These writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the District Mining Officer at Chaibasa shall issue mining challans on production of evidence of payment of all applicable statutory liability including royalty, payment towards District Mineral Foundation Fund, National Mineral Exploration Trust within a period of one week from production of such evidence”. 9. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 6 to issue mining challans to the petitioner on production of evidence of payment of all applicable statutory liability including royalty, payment towards District Mineral Foundation Fund, National Mineral Exploration Trust within a period of one week from the date of production of such evidence. 10. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-