2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C)No.1481of 2022 ----- Manoranjan Jaiswal, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Sheo Narayan Jaiswal, resident of Distillery Compound, H.B. Road, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Mines, Department of Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The District Mining Officer, Ranchi having its office at Collectorate Building, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, having its office at Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi … … … Respondents ------- CORAM:HON’BLEMR. JUSTICESUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner :Mr.Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr.Shrey Mishra, A.C. to A.G. ------ Order No.07/Dated22ndAugust, 2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondents to execute a supplementary lease deed and to extend the lease period till 2042, in view of the provisions contained in Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended in 2015. Factual Matrix: 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 2 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, reads as under:- A mining lease for China clay over 252.74 acres of land in various villages under Thana Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, was executed on 20.03.1986 between the Governor of Bihar and M/s Sheo Narayan Jaiswal (father of the petitioner), under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. A lease deed in Form 'K' was subsequently registered in favour of the lessee. On 06.07.1992, a fresh lease was granted in continuation of the earlier lease for a period of 19 years and 5 months. After expiry of the lease period, the petitioner, being the legal heir of late Sheo Narayan Jaiswal (who passed away in 2021), applied for extension of lease under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended, seeking extension till the year 2042.The petitioner submitted representationdated 21.01.2022 to the respondent authorities requesting consideration of the lease extension.Despite repeated representations, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities till date, hence the instant petition has been filed 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 3 3. It is evident from the factual aspects that the lease over the mineral product, i.e., China clay, has been granted by virtue of the lease deed executed on 20th March, 1986, which was ultimately expired after the lapse of its valid period, i.e., on 13th June, 2005, following an extension from 7th January, 1997. It would be evident from the supplementary lease deed appended at page nos. 78 to 80 of the paper book. 4. The writ petitioner has made an application on 06.09.2017 by referring the provision as contended under Section 8A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957) for renewal/ extension of the lease deed and a representation dated 21.01.2022 has also been filed before the authority concerned but till date no decision has been taken by the authority concerned. Hence this writ petition has been filed. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner: 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that, by virtue of the Gazette notification issued by the Government of India dated 10th February, 2015, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Central Government has declared China Clay to be a minor mineral. 6. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, although an application has been made in the year 2017, but the lease has 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 4 not been renewed/extended, even though the due representation has been filed for redressal of the grievance, therefore the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the State: 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State, has submitted without insisting on filing a counter affidavit and relying instead on the pleadings made in the writ petition itself that the writ petition does not deserve to be allowed. 8. The reason stated is that, as per the admitted facts of the writ petition, the lease deed was extended up to 13th June, 2005, and thereafter no effort has been made for renewal/extension of the lease. Instead, the petitioner filed an application straightaway after a lapse of 12 years, on 06.09.2017, as appended in Annexure-3 of the paper book. 9. The learned State counsel has also submitted that, since China Clay has now been declared a minor mineral by notification dated 10th February, 2015, the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Rules, 2004, as amended in 2017, will be applicable. As per the said amendment, there cannot be any renewal/extension of lease, save and except that on or after 31.03.2022, leases are to be granted only through auction, 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 5 therefore, the writ petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Response on behalf of the Petitioner: 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that since the day when China Clay was declared to be a minor mineral, i.e., by virtue of the notification dated 10th February, 2015, and on that date there was no amendment in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Rules, 2004, the rule as it stood on the date when China Clay was declared to be a minor mineral will not be affected by the amendment inserted in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Rules, 2004. The amendment will have its effect only on the basis of the provisions already available on the date of declaring China Clay from a major to a minor mineral, and hence, by virtue of the provision contained in Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the plea for renewal is to be considered. Analysis: 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition, and also appreciated the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. 10. The undisputed fact in this case is that the lease has been executed by the competent authority of the State and the writ 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 6 petitioner on 20th March, 1986, for carrying out mining operations for China Clay. At the time of execution of the said lease agreement, China Clay was classified as a major mineral. 11. It is also admitted that on the day the lease was granted, the provisions of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, were applicable, and as such, the mining lease was granted in favor of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 8A. 12. The validity of the lease was up to 13th June, 2005, and as such, a supplementary lease deed was executed on 06.07.1992, extending the lease period up to 13th June, 2005. It is also an admitted fact, as would be evident from the paper book, that no document has been placed on record showing a request for extension of the lease filed under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, immediately upon the expiry of the supplementary lease deed, which has expired on 13th June, 2005. 13. However, one representation has been appended as Annexure-3, dated 06.09.2017, wherein reference to earlier applications has been made. 14. The said reference cannot be taken into cognizance by the Court in the absence of any valid document, since merely by filing an application does not automatically extend the lease 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 7 deed. Rather, there is a prescribed format provided under the provisions of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for the purpose of seeking a lease even under the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. Moreover, if an application had been filed, it would have been the bounden duty of the writ petitioner to produce the relevant application to show its bona fides. 15. It is thus evident that, after the lapse of 12 years from the date of expiry of the lease period, which has expired on 13th June, 2005, one application, was filed on 06.09.2017, as would be evident from Annexure-3 appended in the paper book. 16 The position of law, in the meanwhile, has changed by virtue of the amendment incorporated in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as amended in 2017. 17. The reference to the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, amended in 2017, is required herein since China Clay was subsequently declared as a minor mineral by virtue of the notification dated 10th February, 2015, issued by the competent authority of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 18. The objection has been raised on behalf of the learned State counsel that if the application would have been made by 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 8 the petitioner on the date of expiry of the lease deed, which has expired on 13th June, 2005, then it could be understood that the provisions of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, would have been applicable in a case where a due application was filed and was pending before the competent authority. However, in this case, no such application is said to have been filed, which was required to be done in a timely manner. As such, this Court is of the view that whatever has been submitted by the learned State counsel cannot be said to be without any basis. 19. Further, if the writ petitioner is claiming a right for consideration of extension of the lease deed, then the petitioner has to show his bona fide by making an application under the firm in order to shift the laches on the part of the state that even though the application was filed but it is the respondent who has not taken decision in the meanwhile then why the petitioner will be made to suffer. 20. But in the absence of any application, no opportunity or occasion is available to the writ petitioner to place such blame upon the State Authority. 21. The question of the applicability of the provisions of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as on the date when China Clay was 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 9 declared a minor mineral instead of a major mineral, is the issue raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 22. The said submission is also not acceptable to this Court, the reason being that the question of accrual of rights would have been a major issue for consideration of such an argument, and the amendment incorporated would not affect the concerned party if any right had already accrued as on the date of the change in the rules. 23. The accrual of rights is to be shown by the concerned party through an order passed by the competent authority. However, no such decision has been taken by the competent authority. Therefore, after China Clay was reclassified from a major to a minor mineral, the rules applicable to minor minerals would apply. In the instant case, the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as amended in 2017, will be applicable. 24. The said rule is also applicable for the additional reason that no application is pending, and if any application is filed today, then the date of its consideration of the said application will be relevant. Such consideration must be made on the basis of the rules prevailing on the date the application is considered.25. The petitioner could have been given liberty 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 10 to make an application, but the same would be a futile exercise for at least two reasons i.e., first, the conduct of the writ petitioner in sitting idle for about 12 years does not warrant the grant of any relief from the Court, in view of the principles of delay and laches, second, due to the amendment inserted in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as amended in 2017 there is a statutory restriction on renewal or extension of lease deed after 31.03.2022 and after the said date, all lease are required to be made through auction, as per the relevant provisions of Rule 2004 as amended in 2017 which reads as under:- “9 (क) अनुसूची-2 की रैयती भूिम के 05.00 हे० Ɨेũ से कम लघु खिनज का खननपǥा उपायुƅा Ȫारा ˢीकृ त िकया जाएगा। परȶु िक रैयती Ɨेũ के लघु खिनज के 05.00 हे0 से उपर Ɨेũ पर खनन पǥा एवं बालू खिनज, Ťेनाईट, माबŊल, बलुआ पȈर एवं सजावटी पȈर के खनन पǥा की ˢीकृ ित झारखǷ लघु खिनज नीलामी िनयमावली(जो अलग से पįरभािषत एवं िनगŊत िकया जाएगा) मŐ िनŝिपत Ůावधानों के अȶगŊत इलैƃŌोिनक नीलामी/ के माȯम से िनदेशक, खान के Ȫारा िकया जाएगा। परȶु राǛ सरकार आवʴकतानुसार नीलामी/हेतु उपायुƅ को भी Ůािधकृ त कर सकती है। परȶु िक अिधसूचना संƥा-1653/एम०, रांची, िदनांक, 6 िसतɾर, 2016 के Ȫारा अिधसूिचत 31 (इकतीस) खिनजों के सɾɀ मŐ खनन पǥा की ˢीकृ ित झारखǷ लघु खिनज नीलामी िनयमावली (जो अलग से पįरभािषत एवं िनगŊत िकया जाएगा) मŐ िनŝिपत Ůावधानों के अȶगŊत इलैƃŌोिनक नीलामी के माȯम से िनदेशक, खान Ȫारा िकया जाएगा। 9(ङ) सरकारी Ɨेũ एवं 05.00 हे0 Ɨेũ से अिधक के रैयती Ɨेũ पर Ůाɑ वैसे आवेदन पũ िजसमŐ इसअिधसूचना िनगŊत होने की ितिथ से 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 11 पूवŊ झारखǷ लघु खिनज समनुदान िनयमावली, 2004 के िनयम 11 अंतगŊत Letter of Intent (आशय का पũ) िनगŊत हो चुका है, उसे इसअिधसूचना के िनगŊत होने की ितिथ से 180 िदनों के अंदर पयाŊवरण ˢीकृ ित एवं खनन योजन अिनवायŊ ŝप से समिपŊत करना होगा, अɊथा उनका आवेदन ˢतः अˢीकृ त हो जाएगा। 9(च) सरकारी Ɨेũ एवं 05.00 हे0 Ɨेũ से अिधक के रैयती Ɨेũ पर Ůाɑ खनन पटे को जो कर का मेव व एवं पयाŊवरणीय ˢीकृ ित खनन योजना Ůाɑ नही राहत वैसे खर कालितरोिहत हो गये हो, उनके पǥे की अविध पǥा ˢीकृ ित/नवीनीकरण की ितिथ से 31 माचŊ, 2022 तक के िलए अविध िवˑाįरत मानी जाएगी, बशतő िकअिधसूचना की ितिथ के पूवŊ खनन पǥा कीअˢीकृ ित/रȞ/ʩयगत होने का आदेश, नहीं पाįरत िकया गया है, परȶु वैसे खानन पǥे पर कोई खनन तबतक नहीं िकया जा सके गा, जबतक खनन हेतु आवʴक पयाŊवरणीय ˢीकृ ित/वन एवं पयाŊवरण िवभाग की ˢीकृ ित /खनन योजना ˢीकृ ित Ůाɑ नहीं हो जाता है।आवेदक को सभी वांिछत अनापȅी 180 िदनों के अंदर समिपŊत कना होगा। 9(छ) सरकारी Ɨेũ एवं 05.00 हे0 Ɨेũ से अिधक के रैयती Ɨेũ पर ˢीकृ त /नवीकृ त खनन पǥे की अविध यिद उनकी ˢीकृ ित/नवीकरण की अविध 3[31 माचŊ, 2022 के बाद की ितिथ हो, तो उनकी अविध उनकी ˢीकृ ित/नवीकरण की अविध तक िविधमाɊ रहेगी। 9(12) िनयम-9 (1) (घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तथा 9 (10) पूवŊ से ˢीकृ त/आविदत लघु खिनज के 5.00 हेƃेयर Ɨेũ से कम Ɨेũ पर भी लागू होंगŐ।“ 27. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9 (क) under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction. 28. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9(ङ), of Jharkhand 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 12 Minor Mineral Concession Rules wherein it has been stipulated that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected. 29. Further, there is a proviso under Rule 9(ङ) which was added by the amendment dated 28.09.2020 and as per the said proviso, in case where due to delay in granting Environmental Clearance beyond 180 days, which is not attributable to a lessee, and the lease agreement was not approved, in those cases the Revisional Authority was given power to decide the matter on merits. 30. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the statutory command after the aforesaid amendment is for allotment of the mining lease only on the basis of the auction and a restriction has been put for the renewal of the lease on the basis of the application made by one or the other. The specific provision has been given under Rule 9 (च) putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction. 2025:JHHC:24983-DB Page 13 31. This Court, based on the aforesaid discussion and further taking into consideration that China Clay has now been declared a minor mineral by notification dated 10th February, 2015, therefore the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Rules, 2004, as amended in 2017, will be applicable, is of the view that no positive direction can be issued in favour of the writ petitioner. 27. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed and as such disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek A.F.R.