Kunal Tiwary v. The State of Jharkhand

Judgment

1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s): “i. For issuance appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing order, contained in Memo No. 576/M dated

11.10.2017 (Annexure-17), issued by Assistant Mining 1 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 Officer, Khunti, whereby & where under after hearing the petitioner the Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti has passed an order for recovery of Rs.5,16,908/- in lieu of the arrears of mining lease of Village: Japut of Plot No. 12, Area 3 acres, ignoring the fact that the petitioner has already surrendered his mining lease way back in January, 2007 itself and the department has also given No Dues Certificate for the same; ii. During pendency of the instant writ petition the operation of the order, contained in Memo No. 576/M dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure-17), passed by Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti may kindly be stayed; AND iii. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitled, for doing justice to the petitioner.” Factual Matrix:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, are as under: The petitioner was given the Provisional Mining Lease for the term of 10 years by mining lease dated

15.12.2004 of village Japut, appertaining to Plot No. 12(P), Area 3 acres. After the said mining lease was given to the petitioner, the petitioner for some personal difficulty could not do any mining operation and as such a letter was written to District Mining Officer, Ranchi dated 10.01.2007, stating therein that the petitioner is not in a position to submit any Challan because he could not start the mining operation and also, he wants to deposit all the dues. The petitioner has also stated 2 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 that he is depositing the lease deed in the Office of District Mining Officer, Ranchi. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 15th January, 2007 by Demand Draft No. 116855 and also the arrears of Income Tax of Rs. 1,760/- which was duly informed by the letter dated 15.01.2007 to the District Mining Officer, Ranchi and the same was also received by the concerned Office. After depositing all the arrears, the petitioner again wrote a letter to the District Mining Officer, Ranchi on 16th January, 2007, requesting therein for giving "No Dues Certificate" as the petitioner has already deposited the entire dues. Thereafter, the petitioner was given "No Dues Certificate" by the District Mining Office, Ranchi which was issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Ranchi dated 19.03.2007. The petitioner had also requested for transferring of the said mining lease deed to Marshal Topno & Roushan Suleman Bhengra and the petitioner received a letter dated 19.07.2007 from the Office of District Mining Office, Ranchi wherein it was informed to the petitioner that Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by his order dated 20.06.2007 has issued the order for 3 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 transferring the said mining lease deed in favour of those two persons. The said Marshal Topno and Roushan Suleman Bhengra had also deposited Rs. 27,000/- of NSC and Rs. 1,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 28.07.2007 for transferring the said lease deed in their favour. It is the case of the petitioner that after all the formalities were completed, the petitioner was not having any concern with the said mining lease deed, as he had deposited all the dues to the concerned department, way back in the year 2007 itself and thereafter, the order was also issued for giving the lease deed of Village: Japut, Plot No. 12, Area 3 acres to Marshal Topno and Roushan Suleman Bhengra but the petitioner received a letter issued from the District Mining Office, Khunti vide Memo No.157/M dated

17.05.2010 demanding Rs.1,61,986/- as arrears of Provisional Mining Lease Deed. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had surrendered the said mining lease before the District Mining Office, Ranchi on 10th January, 2007 and also deposited the entire arrears of royalty in lieu of the said mining lease deed and thereafter has also obtained the "No Dues Certificate" till December, 2006. 4 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 The petitioner being aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner has not done any mining work over the said plot either prior to surrender of the mining lease or even thereafter and as such the respondents were not justified in issuing the notice for realisation of arrears of mining lease, had filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4384 of 2010.

The High Court directed the District Mining Officer, Khunti to supply the details of demand of the petitioner and after passing of the order, the petitioner again received a letter dated 28th February, 2011 by the District Mining Office, Khunti, issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti, stating that in compliance of the order passed by Jharkhand High Court the details of the arrears of mining lease and interest on the said amount was being provided therein. Thereafter, the petitioner after receiving the said letter, wrote to the Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti on

14.03.2011, stating therein that the entire detail which has been provided to the petitioner relates to the period from January, 2007 till December, 2010 and the petitioner is not concerned with the said period, as the petitioner has already surrendered his mining lease deed in the month of January, 2007 and the concerned office has also issued No Objection Certificate to the 5 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 petitioner and therefore, in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4384 of 2010 the letter issued on 28th February, 2011 also not in consonance with the order of this Court as the order clearly states about the "No Dues Certificate" wherein if any amount was found to be payable by the petitioner, the same shall be recovered but no amount which relates to the period after the "No Dues Certificate" was issued, can be recovered by the respondents from the petitioner. In the meantime, Marshal Topno has also moved before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, in Revision Case No. 116/2012 wherein an order was passed on

17.11.2014 whereby the Revision of the said Marshal Topno was rejected and the District Mining Officer, Khunti was directed to realize all the Govt. Dues in accordance with law. The said Marshal Topno had filed an application before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi for transferring the deed in his favour, as the mining lease for stone was in the name of the petitioner for 10 years till 13.12.2014 and he has also submitted that in spite of fulfilling all the formalities the deed was not executed in his favour but without considering the said aspect the Mines Commissioner dismissed the said Revision Application. 6 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 Thereafter, the petitioner again received a letter on

29.10.2015 wherein he was again demanded a Dead Rent & Surface Rent along with the interest till 31st December, 2015 to the tune of Rs.5,78,197/-. The petitioner in response to the said letter had again written to the Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti on

19.11.2015 that he is not liable to pay the arrears of mining lease along with the interest as he has already surrendered his mining lease for transferring the same to several persons, namely, Marshal Topno & Roushan Suleman Bhengra but the same could not be transferred to them because of the fault of the respondents, as such, the petitioner is not liable to pay any such amount. Thereafter, again the petitioner was issued letter dated 05.06.2017 wherein the respondents has again demanded the arrears of lease rent and the interest thereon to the tune of Rs.6,74,023/-. It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondents were pressing hard for depositing the aforesaid amount by the petitioner therefore, with objection, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 50,000/- on

15.06.2017 only to show the bonafide and reserving his right to file writ petition before the Court and as such 7 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 the petitioner has informed the said aspect to the Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti on 19.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition before the High Court being W.P.(C) No. 4842 of 2017 and the same was disposed of vide order dated

22.08.2017, directing the respondent i.e. the District Mining Officer, Khunti consider representation/objection filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within eight weeks. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner again gave his detailed representation to the District Mining Officer, Khunti on 11th October, 2017 to which, after hearing the parties the respondent Assistant Mining Officer, Khunti passed a reasoned & detailed order, contained in Memo No. 576/M dated 11.10.2017 wherein the petitioner was made liable for payment of arrears of lease to the tune of Rs. 5,16,908/-, but the said order does not contain any calculation for the same which is vague in nature, against which the instant writ petition has been filed. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in challenging the impugned order: 8 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 (i) It has been submitted that the respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner has deposited the fees for transferring the mining lease and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has also ordered for transferring the mining lease to the proposed transferee and No Objection Certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner but if the said lease had not been transferred, the demand as has been made by the respondents after issuance of the No Objection Certificate, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) It has also been submitted that no calculation has been given the order dated 11.10.2017 (impugned herein) as to how the earlier demand of Rs.6,74,023/- has been reduced to Rs.5,16,908/-. (iii) The ground has been taken that there are no dues payable by the petitioner till January, 2007 and the entire arrears which the respondents demanding from the petitioner, the same is not liable to be recovered from the petitioner after the issuance of No Objection Certificate. (iv) The ground has also been taken that the petitioner had surrendered his lease deed for transferring the same to the transferees and as such, no mining 9 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 operation was done after surrendering of the mining lease, therefore, demanding the arrears of lease is against the provision of law and if the said mining lease had not been transferred to the transferee after surrendering his mining lease, the fault lies on the part of the respondents, for which there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order impugned herein is bad in the eyes of law and as such, is not sustainable and is fit to be quashed and set aside. Submission on behalf of the Respondents:

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: (i) It has been submitted that the petitioner failed to submit the required transfer deed and pay the necessary dues within the stipulated time frame, which resulted in the transfer being rendered void, hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the demand raised on behalf of the respondents. (ii) It has also been submitted that in Revision Case No. 116 of 2012, the Mines Commissioner ruled that the transfer became void ab initio due to the petitioner’s failure to obtain the Royalty Clearance 10 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 Certificate and even after repeated opportunities and condoning the delay due to bifurcation and creation of Khunti District, the petitioner did not comply the same and even after passing of speaking order on 11.10.2017, the petitioner did not comply with the same and choose to prefer writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order impugned herein, therefore, may not be interfered with and the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis

7. The admitted fact as would be evident from the reference of the fact as enumerated herein is that the demand which has been raised in exercise of power conferred under Rule 28(1) of the J.M.M.C. Rule, 2004 is the issue which is being agitated on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that once the lease has been surrendered in favour of two persons, namely, Marshal Topno and Roushan Suleman Bhengra, and to that effect No Objection Certificate has also been issued.

8. The laches has been tried to be shown on behalf of the petitioner that entire document as required vide Annexure-5 has also been submitted but in the meanwhile, due to bifurcation of the district of Ranchi 11 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 and in consequence thereof, creation of the district of Khunti, no decision has been taken by the competent authority on transfer of jurisdiction from the district of Ranchi to that of the district of Khunti, rather, after lapse of three years, again the demand has been issued against the petitioner.

9. The question, therefore, which requires consideration is that- “Whether in such circumstances where No Objection Certification has been issued in favour of the writ petitioner and document has also been submitted before authority having jurisdiction, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and on creation of the new district of Khunti again due to want of the document, the liability can be casted upon the writ petitioner?”

10. This Court, in order to answer the said issue, needs to refer herein the fact which has been taken note by this Court in the order dated 11.11.2024 wherein in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti sworn by the District Mining Officer, it has been stated that the documents which was directed to be filed by the concerned stake holders for transferring of mining lease as referred in Annexure-5 dated 18.07.2007 had not been submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, 12 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 Khunti. The document has been found to be submitted, as would find mentioned in Annexure-5 dated

18.07.2007 only which was prior to bifurcation of the district of Ranchi and carving out the district of Khunti i.e., on 12.09.2007 appending therein the document as available in Annexure-6 to the paper book.

11. It has also been taken note in paragraph-4 of the said order that since the said documents as mentioned in Annexure-5 had been submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and in the meanwhile, the District Khunti has been carved out and as such there is requirement to submit the document before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti.

12. But this Court has not accepted the said version of the concerned authority for the reason that once the document has been submitted before the competent authority having jurisdiction the day when document was submitted then there is no requirement to ask fresh document after creation of the jurisdiction to the different authority, rather, it was incumbent upon the authority to transfer all the records to the new authority having been conferred with the jurisdiction, for ready reference, the order dated

11.11.2024 is being referred herein:- 13 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 “Order No. 15 / Dated: 11th November, 2024 Reference has been made to the order dated

17.10.2024 whereby and whereunder we have passed the order directing the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti that as to why the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, on 20.06.2007 has been given go by, for the reference paragraph No.5 is referred herein:- “5. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti by ignoring the order dated 20.06.2007, as such, this Court is of the view that for adjudication of the issue and in order to appreciate the liability which has been casted upon the petitioner, the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 20.06.2007 is to be perused.”

2. The Deputy Commissioner, in view of the aforesaid order has filed an affidavit although sworn by the District Mining Officer under the authority of Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, wherein the statement inter alia has been made that the documents which was directed to be filed by the concerned stakeholders for transferring of mining lease as referred in Annexure-5 dated 18.07.2007 had not been submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti.

3. Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no reason to submit the document afresh before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, since, the said document as referred in the Annexure-5 dated 18.07.2007 had already been submitted in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi prior to bifurcation of the District of Ranchi creating the District of Khunti on 12.09.2007 and to that effect, the documents have also been appended as Annexure-6.

4. The learned State Counsel has submitted that since the said documents as referred in Annexure-5 had been submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and in the meanwhile, the District Khunti has been carved out and as such there is requirement to submit the document before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti and to that effect the statement has been given in the said affidavit. 14 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017

5. We are not convinced with the said statement reserving that once the document has been submitted or any order has been complied with before taking decision of bifurcation of the districts carving out two districts i.e. Ranchi and Khunti and the document had already been submitted which has also been admitted by the affidavit filed on behalf of the District Khunti prior to the creation of the district Khunti on 12.09.2007, the litigant concerned cannot be asked to submit the document afresh before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti.

6. The creation of the separate district i.e. Khunti district is the administrative decision of the State and for that no party will be put to disadvantageous position, rather, the exercise ought to have been for the purpose of taking decision from the State which was there as on 12.09.2007, the day when the district Khunti has been created and for that it was the accountability of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to send all the documents before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti to take further necessary action not to ask the petitioner to again comply with the requirements which has been referred in the decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated

20.06.2007.

7. This Court in view thereof is of the view that the present affidavit cannot be said to satisfactory and as such the said affidavit is hereby rejected.

8. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti is directed to appear- in-person along with District Mining Officer also by explaining the situation as to under which jurisdiction he has taken such decision.

9. Let this case be listed on 09th December, 2024. On that day, the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti is directed to appear-in-person along with District Mining Officer with affidavit which is to be filed on or before next date of hearing.”

13. The affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, has been found to be not 15 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 satisfactory and accordingly rejected with a direction to file fresh affidavit.

14. The fresh affidavit has been filed on 07.12.2024 which has been taken note in the order dated

09.12.2024 wherein again the same thing has been reiterated.

15. This Court, incorporating the stand again taken as was recorded in the order dated 11.11.2024, has given specific finding in the order dated 09.12.2024 as under paragraph 15 that this Court cannot come in the way so far as the State revenue is concerned but certainly if there is no laches on the part of the litigant concerned, no monetary liability can be casted and equally if there is no laches on the part of the State authority then also the State authority cannot be said to be blamed.

16. This Court, after taking note of the statement made by the District Mining Officer to the extent that due bifurcation and creation of Khunti District the file has been sent to the jurisdiction of District Mining Officer, Khunti as under paragraph-11 of the said order dated

09.12.2024. But, no formal communication has been for making necessary correction documentation by replacing Ranchi District to that of Khunti District, hence, again directed the Deputy 16 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 Commissioner, Khunti and District Mining Officer, Khunti to file affidavit, for ready reference, the order dated 09.12.2024 is being referred herein:- “Order No. 16 : Dated 9th December, 2024

1. Reference may be made to order dated 11th November,

2. In pursuance thereto, affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 on 07.12.2024.

3. We have gone through the said affidavit and found that up-to paragraph no. 14 the same thing has been reiterated which was taken note by the petitioner based upon which the pleading has been made by the writ petitioner. It has been stated at paragraph 15 of the supplementary counter affidavit that since in terms of the Rule, 2004 the transfer was not made within 90 days of the permission granted for transfer lease deed and as such the mining lease which was issued in favour of present petitioner, transferred in favour of Marshal Toppo and Roshan Suleman Bhengra. However, exercising the power vested the power under Rule 28 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti vide order dated 12.05.2010 and after perusing the order of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 20.06.2007 granted to the proposed transferee for submitting the deed of transfer by amending the District and address from Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to Deputy Commissioner, Khunti and to submit the due amount. However, the same was not complied with by the proposed transferee and as such the transfer deed was never executed.

4. Mr. Lokesh Mishra, the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti and Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, the District Mining Officer, Khunti are physically present before this Court pursuance to order dated 11th November, 2024 and have tried to convince this Court that there is no lapses on the part of the authority concerned rather it is accountability on the part of the present petitioner who has failed in filing the application within a period of 90 days in getting the 17 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 deed transferred in favour of Marshal Toppo and Roshan Suleman Bhengra.

5. In course of interaction, the District Mining Officer has stated that by virtue of the bifurcation of the district of Ranchi into two district i.e., Ranchi and Khunti district w.e.f. 12.09.2007, the requirement was to make the minor correction in the document by correcting the district Ranchi to that of district Khunti and as such due communication ought to have been made to the petitioner for making necessary correction therein for the purpose of execution of transfer deed, which could not have been done immediately after creation of the District Khunti.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has stated that the consideration has been given once the lease deed is said to have been cancelled in view of provision of Section 28 (1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. But after lapse of about 3 years again enquiry was conducted, which was based upon the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner on its own.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has also stated by making reference of proviso to Rule 28(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004 wherein it has been provided that if any application either for the issuance of the lease or renewal or transfer if not completed within the period of 90 days, the same will be deemed to be cancelled. However, power has been conferred under the proviso that if there is any delay in completion of the process as provided under Rule 28(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004 beyond the period of 90 days then the power to condone such delay is there.

8. The Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has further stated that on the basis of said power even though the lease deed deemed to have been cancelled by virtue of order passed, as has been referred in the order passed by the revisional authority, but thereafter exercising the power as provided under Section 28(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, it has been found that since the transfer deed was not executed hence the mining lease was still in the name of the present petitioner till 14.12.2014, as such the entire liability has been casted upon the petitioner. 18 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017

9. But we are not satisfied with the contention which has been made on behalf of the officers.

10. The said dissatisfaction is based upon mainly for three reasons. Firstly, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has taken decision on 20.06.2007 by passing an order by accepting the transfer of deed but subject to fulfillment of condition that is execution of the transfer deed. Secondly, the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents including the Challan etc. for the purpose of depositing in the government treasury, as would be evident from communication dated 19.07.2007. And the third reason is the admission of the District Mining Officer regarding communication to be made for correction in the document for replacing Ranchi to that of Khunti, which could not have been made soon.

11. The authority in the district of Ranchi, prior to bifurcation into Khunti District has not taken any decision rather remained inactive and meanwhile on 12.09.2007, the Khunti district has been carved out. The District Mining Officer, Khunti has stated that the entire process has been completed by the petitioner at the time when the jurisdiction was conferred with the District Mining Officer, Ranchi but due to bifurcation and creation of Khunti District the file has been sent to the jurisdiction of District Mining Officer, Khunti. However, no formal communication in this regard has been sent for making necessary correction in the documentation by replacing Ranchi District to that of Khunti District.

12. But the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has stated that he has exercised the power under the proviso but the question is that once it has been stated to be cancelled, as has been passed by the revisional authority vide order dated 17.11.2014 then under what authority the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the power once the statutory revisional authority has given a finding that the lease deed to have been cancelled.

13. Since the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti has exercised the power under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, which means that the said power could have 19 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 been exercised earlier also. But no reason is there in the affidavit to the extent that why after lapse of three years decision has been taken.

14. The question of liability cannot be disputed in view of object and intent of the Mining Rules derived from the MMDR Act, 1957 wherein in order to protect the State revenue the concept of dead rent as under Section 15 of the MMDR Act has been brought on being so that the State exchequer may not suffer.

15. This Court cannot come in the way so far as the State revenue is concerned but certainly if there is no laches on the part of the litigant concerned, no monetary liability can be casted and equally if there is no laches on the part of the State authority then also the State authority cannot be said to be blamed.

16. This Court, in the facts and circumstances aforesaid, as referred hereinabove, and as per the statement made by the District Mining Officer, Khunti to the effect that the minor correction was required by replacing the Ranchi District to that of Khunti District, for which a formal communication ought to have been there, but it was not given.

17. Therefore, we are adjourning the matter for two weeks’ so that the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti shall file an affidavit. Further, the District Mining Officer, Khunti shall also file affidavit what has been stated by him orally, as referred above.

18. List this case on 13.01.2025.”

17. The fresh affidavit has been filed again taking the same view of submission of document afresh before the District Mining Officer Khunti which having not been carried out so the demand has been issued.

18. This Court, on perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent Deputy Commissioner and the District Mining Officer, Khunti has found, as has been 20 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 incorporated in the orders referred hereinabove, that the fact about submission of documents as was directed to be submitted by the petitioner the day when the order of transfer of the mining lease in favour of Marshal Topno & Roushan Suleman Bhengra was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 19.07.2007 and documents as referred therein has also been submitted but at that time the jurisdiction was lying with the officer posted in the district of Ranchi. The documents have been submitted but thereafter, after 12.09.2007 the new district by bifurcating the district of Ranchi has been created as district of Khunti.

19. After lapse of about three years, the demand has been madevide Memo No.157/M dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure-7) casting liability upon the petitioner by reiterating the condition of submission of transfer deed by the petitioner.

20. This Court is of the view that once the document has been submitted, which is not being denied, as has been referred in the order dated 11.11.2024 and

09.12.2024, the transferor authority was duty bound to transfer the entire record to the transferee authority of the new district, i.e., the district of Khunti but as per the version of the District Mining Officer, as referred in the order dated 11.11.2024 and 09.12.2024, it is admitted 21 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 by him that the document was not available on record and fresh document was required to be submitted after carving out the jurisdiction of the district of Khunti on bifurcation of the district of Ranchi.

21. But, such stand, according to our considered view, is absolutely improper and not acceptable since the transfer being a policy decision and if the document has already been submitted before the authority having jurisdiction and, in the meanwhile, in consequence of the carving out the new jurisdiction to other authority, the entire file including all the documents are to be transferred to the new incumbent.

22. It is not required for the new incumbent to again call upon the document which has already been submitted. The case herein is exactly the same since the District Mining Officer, Khunti has sought for the document afresh after getting jurisdiction due to carving out the district of Khunti on bifurcation of the district of Ranchi.

23. This Court is of the view that in such a situation where the document has already been submitted, as referred in Annexure-5 dated 19.07.2007, the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti or the District Mining Officer, Khunti were required to take follow up action in 22 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 pursuance to the decision already taken by the authority who was having jurisdiction, as would be evident from Annexure-5 dated 19.07.2007. The authority who has been conferred with the fresh jurisdiction, cannot ask for the fresh document, rather, he is to proceed further by taking follow up action from the stage in which the original record has been transferred to the authority after getting jurisdiction.

24. This Court, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, as has been admitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti in paragraph-10 of the affidavit dated

15.01.2025 that the document although was submitted but due to creation of the district of Khunti, the transfer deed could not be executed. The relevant paragraphs (9 & 10) of the said affidavit are being referred herein :- “9. That it is submitted that during the currency of the lease period, the Petitioner made an application on

27.02.2007 for transfer of his mining lease along with an application fee of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of one ’Marshal Topno and Roshan Suleman Bhengra’. That pursuant to the application, the permission was granted for transfer of the mining lease in favour of Marshal Topno and Roshan Suleman Bhengra on 20.06.2007 as per Rule 24 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and accordingly Assistant Mining Officer, Ranchi also communicated to the Petitioner as well as the proposed transferee to submit the transfer deed and security amount and other requisite fees within 15 days to register the mining lease in favour of the 23 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 proposed transferee in Form ’E’ in terms of Rule 24 (5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004.

10. That it is submitted that pursuant to the above, the transfer deed was submitted on 13.08.2007 and accordingly the file was sent to Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 07.09.2007 for execution of the mining lease deed but in the meantime, in result of the formation of Khunti District on 12.09.2007, the same could not be executed in the district of Ranchi and accordingly, the file with the un-executed transfer deed was transferred to the Revenue Department, Khunti District on 28.09.2007.”

25. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that the said plea taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti is not fit to be accepted. Accordingly rejected.

26. The demand since has been raised presuming the possession of the lease in favour of the writ petitioner, even though the petitioner has surrendered the lease and in lieu thereof, No Objection Certificate has also been issued and all the documents have also been submitted in the district of Ranchi, having jurisdiction to take decision and accordingly decision was also taken and if no follow up action has been taken by the authority after getting the jurisdiction due to carving out of the district of Khunti on bifurcation of the district of Ranchi, the writ petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability.

27. If the demand notice will be allowed to prevail, then for no laches committed on the part of the writ 24 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017 petitioner, he will have to suffer while actually, as per the discussion made hereinabove, the laches lies on the part of the Deputy Commissioner and the District Mining Officer, Khunti.

28. It needs to refer herein that the conduct of the writ petitioner also suggests that time and again he is coming to the court of law by filing litigation which also shows that he was taking sincere endeavour for adjudication of the issue that once the documents have been submitted to the district of Ranchi having jurisdiction, whether the new authority, after getting jurisdiction, can ask for document afresh. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No.4842 of 2017, was disposed of vide order 22.08.2017 by directing the authority to decide the matter and liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation but the concerned authority, without taking consideration the fact about no requirement to ask the writ petitioner to file fresh document once submitted before the competent authority, has again rejected the same.

29. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 25 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017

30. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 576/M dated 11.10.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.

31. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.

32. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 25/09/2025 Birendra/- A.F.R. 26 W.P.(C) No. 7283 of 2017