2025:JHHC:30217-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5456 of 2025 ----- M/s. Shree Guru Stone Works a proprietorship concern represented through its proprietor Amarjit Singh aged about 57 years son of Lt. Kuldip Singh both having office at Malgodam Road, P.O. & P.S. Bagitapara, District Pakur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Dy. Commissioner District cum Magistrate, Pakur, having its office at Collectorate, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur. 3. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at Collectorate, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur. … … Respondents ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A. S. Pati, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III ------ Order No. 04/Dated 26th September, 2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for following reliefs:- “For quashing the order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure-12) contained in memo no.466 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder the mining lease of the petitioner has been terminated for the remainder period and petitioner has been directed to handover the leasehold area to the respondents.” 2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the writ petition read as under :- The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease of minor mineral (stone) in respect of the area situated in Mauza Kashila, Thana No. 15, Jamabandi No.6. 2025:JHHC:30217-DB 2 3. After observing all the formalities the Letter of Intent dated 06.07.2021 was issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. 4. The District Mining Officer issued a contiguous certificate dated 04.08.2021 pertaining to the mining lease/Lol of the petitioner and the Environmental Clerance Certificate dated 30.10.2021 was issued in his favour. 5. The mining lease was registered on 19.01.2022 and on 20.07.2023 the mining plan was approved by the Dept. of Industry, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand. 6. On 12.03.2022 the Consent to Operate was granted in favour of the petitioner. 7. The District Mining Officer, Pakur vide letter dated 22.03.2024 issued show cause to the petitioner with regard to the discrepancy in the contiguous certificate and as to why legal action be not initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply by letters dated 06.04.2024 refuting the allegation and requested for physical inspection, 8. The respondent no. 3, i.e., District Mining Officer, Pakur issued a letter dated 13.05.2024 directing the petitioner to submit fresh environmental clearance certificate in B-1 category. 9. The District Mining Officer, Pakur vide letter dated 13.11.2024 issued show cause to the petitioner as to why 2025:JHHC:30217-DB 3 the mining lease be not terminated. The petitioner submitted its reply by letters dated 25.11.2024 refuting the allegation. 10. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.03.2025 contained in memo no. 466 passed by the respondent no. 2, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, the mining lease of the petitioner has been terminated for the remainder period and petitioner has been directed to handover the leasehold area to the respondents. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the order by which the mining leases of the petitioner has been terminated for the remainder period and the petitioner has been directed to hand over the leasehold area to the respondents. 12. Mr. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III representing the respondent-State, has submitted that the alternative remedy is available under the Jharkhand Mining Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 and this writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of the alternative remedy provided under the statute. 13. Upon this, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he may be given such liberty by this Court to approach such 2025:JHHC:30217-DB 4 alternative forum to avail the alternative remedy as provided by the statute. 14. This Court, considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, is disposing of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to search out the remedy for redressal of his grievance and accordingly, approach the appropriate forum. If such liberty will be availed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the concerned authority will decide the contention raised against the order impugned, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within the further period of 08 weeks. 15. The concerned authority is directed to decide the aforesaid issue independently without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. 16. The interim stay granted vide order dated 10.06.2025 stands vacated. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 26th September, 2025 Birendra/ Uploaded on 26.09.2025