RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:

1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s): (i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and / or direction(s) for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 431/M dated 04.03.2023 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder a demand of Rs.6,00,91,281/-towards royalty, Rs.1,80,27,384/- towards DMFT, Rs.6,00,913/- towards Environmental Cess and Rs.12,01,286/- towards Income Tax has been raised and further Rs.2,000/- penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Rule 42(1) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of mining and has been granted mining leases primarily for stone quarry at Plot Nos. 6,7 and 237/P, area 4.29 acres mouza Sundarpahari, Maheshpur in the district of Pakur. The mining lease for the said stone quarry was granted on 10.02.2006 till 09.02.2011.

3. The petitioner made a renewal application for extension of mining lease on 18.12.2010, which was forwarded by the authority concerned and the District Mining Officer, Pakur vide letter dated 13.12.2017 granted approval for renewal of mining for the said mining lease area for the period 10.02.2011 to 31.03.2020. Accordingly, a supplementary lease deed was entered between the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and the petitioner on 16.01.2018.

4. Thereafter, consent to operate was granted to the petitioner on 20.04.2018. Pursuant thereto a supplementary lease deed was executed on 20.12.2020 for extension of mining lease till 31.03.2022 for the said mining lease area.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that before expiry of the mining lease of the petitioner on 31.03.2022, the petitioner removed all the machines and no mining activities was carried out by the petitioner after the expiry of the mining lease i.e., 31.03.2022 but in spite of that an order was passed on 04.03.2023 under the signature of District Mining Officer, Pakur, whereby and whereunder a demand of Rs.6,00,91,281/- towards royalty, Rs.1,80,27,384/- towards DMFT, Rs.6,00,913/- towards Environmental Cess and Rs.12,01,286/- towards Income Tax has been raised and further Rs.2,000/- penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner for violation of Rule 42(1) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 mainly on two grounds. The first ground has been taken that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before imposing the penalty and raising demand. Further ground has been taken that the District Mining Officer, has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

7. It has further been submitted by referring to order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein both the grounds has been taken into consideration while granting ad interim relief in favour of petitioner by staying all further proceedings in pursuant to order dated 04.03.2023 [impugned order].

8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the State has come out with notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 conferring power upon the different authorities based upon the territorial jurisdiction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOFRuRh9eYCUeYlKNZGHIQt9QW0cya%2Fiu16EeOgvwqVIl&caseno=WPC/828/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010242082017&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.