2025:JHHC:21798-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3341 of 2023 ----- M/s Narayan Stone Works (a proprietorship firm) having its work at Mouza Maharo, P.S- Hiranpur, through his Proprietor Sri Vikash Chandra, Aged about 43 years, S/o: Sri Fanindra Kumar Akela, At:Annapurna Colony, P.O+P.S+Dist- Pakur, Jharkhand;… … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O+P.S- Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O+P.S- Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S- Pakur, Dist-Pakur, Jharkhand. 4. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S- Pakur, Dist-Pakur, Jharkhand … … Respondents ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate : Mr. Rishov Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shrey Mishra, A.C. to A.G. ------ Order No. 06/Dated 4th August, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The case has been listed under the heading for “Orders (with defect)” for removal of surviving defect No.1 which pertains to non-availability of seal of the petitioner firm on the vakalatnama. 2025:JHHC:21798-DB 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that he will remove the defect in course of the day. 3. Considering the same, such liberty is given to remove the defect. 4. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have submitted that the matter may be heard on merit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, rather, has submitted that the issue has already been decided by this Court in Grands Mining v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 2360 of 2022] and Batch matters decided on 23.09.2024. 6. This Court has gone through the prayer made in the writ petition along with the pleading and found therefrom that the order dated 10.06.2023, as appended as Annexure-6 Series, wherein the petitioner has been directed to make payment of differential royalty, D.M.F.T., Environmental Cess and Income Tax on the sole ground that stone boulder excavated from the mines of the petitioner has been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chips. 7. We have perused the order passed by this Court dated 23.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022 and 2025:JHHC:21798-DB 3 Batch cases and found therefrom that similar issue has been decided by this Court which would be evident from relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order, which are being quoted hereunder as :- “161. In case of environmental damage caused by corporations, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has adopted the principles of “polluter pays”, “precautionary principle”, and “sustainable development”. The principle of “Polluters Pays” demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution lies with the undertakings which caused such pollution in the first place. The “Precautionary Principle” mandates action to avert risks that could cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment and human health. 162. Furthermore, the Companies Act, 2013 introduced a significant provision, Section 135, as part of its Corporate Social responsibility. This includes initiatives related to environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation Corporations are now required to allocate a portion of their profits towards activities that benefits society and the environment, driving investments in projects aimed at addressing climate change. 163. Thus, Legal and moral responsibilities should be taken together as a bundle of obligations for businesses to effectively discharge their functions with accountability inevitably linked to moral responsibility. 164. This Court in the purport of the aforesaid underlying object and adverting to the factual aspect involved in the present matter, it is admitted that the boulders, which has been taken out by the mines operators admittedly is lesser in cost to that of chips. The petitioners‟ case is that they extract boulder for which the rate of royalty is less i.e., Rs. 132 per cubic meter but outside the lease-hold area the same is being converted into chips and hence, the royalty which has been earmarked for Chips i.e., @ Rs. 250 per 2025:JHHC:21798-DB 4 cubic meter is not liable to be paid by one or the other petitioners. 165. But this Court is of the view that whether it is inside the leasehold area or outside the leasehold area, when the very concept is pay to the society due to extraction of the mining operation to compensate the nature then it is the obligation on the part of the petitioners to pay the royalty on the basis of ultimate use of mines product, here it is from boulder to chips. 166. In the light of aforesaid discussions and observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions sans merit and accordingly are dismissed.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the matter may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022. 9. We, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the similar issue has been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022 and Batch cases, as referred hereinabove, and as such this writ petition is also being disposed of by dismissing the writ petition in terms of the order passed on 23.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.2360 of 2022 and Batch cases. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/N.A.F.R.