Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20299 (JHR)

MS DIPALI PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA REPESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES DEPTT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

WPC/4319/2024 · 2025-03-27

Deepak Roshan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

-1 of 2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4319 of 2024 Ms. Dipali Pandey, aged about 51 years, Wife of Late Rajesh Pandey, resident of Sarna Toli, New Road, Ward No. 14, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand – 835302 ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India represented through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 1100001, P.O: Shastri Bhawan, P.S : Parliament Circle. 2. The Joint Secretary & Revision Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 1100001, P.O: Shastri Bhawan, P.S : Parliament Circle. 3.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 5.The District Mining Officer, Lohardaga, District Lohardaga-835302, P.O. and P.S Lohardaga. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Abdullah Umar, Advocate. Mr. Syed Hozaifa Arsh, Advocate. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Mr. Akash, Advocate. For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to ASGI Mr. Harsh Chandra, A.C. to ASGI For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 06/Dated: 27.03.2025 The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment dt. 04.03.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 3399 of 2019 and connected cases. Therefore, for the reasons alike, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice issued by the District Mining Officer to the petitioner under Section 21(5) of the Act is set aside. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents for demanding and collecting the same through the designated authority under the Statute. -2 of 2- Amounts deposited, if any, by the petitioner with the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition shall be refunded to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with interest @ 7 per cent per annum from the date of making such deposit, if any, till the date of actual refund to the petitioner. All other points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are left open. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/VK