2025:JHHC:22478-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4194 of 2025 ----- Rahul Singh, S/o Lalsahab Singh, R/o Sakin-N345, Ashiyana, P.O. & P.S. Lucknow, District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226014 through its Power of Attorney Holder, Animesh Kumar Gupta aged about 33 years, S/o Late Ashok Kumar Gupta, R/o Gupta Market, College Road, P.O & P.S. Sahibgaj, Dist-Sahibganj. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology officiating from his office at Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O and P.S-Doranda, Dist- Ranchi-834002. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, officiating from his office at Collectorate Building, Stadium Road, P.O and P.S Sahibaganj, Dist-Sahibganj. 3. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, officiating from his office at District Mining Office, Near Collectorate Building, Stadium Road, P.O and P.S Sahibaganj, Dist- Sahibganj. … … Respondents ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. ------ Order No. 03/Dated 8th August, 2025 1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer has been made for quashing of the notice dated 09.02.2023 as contained in Letter No.97/M. 2. Much have been argued by Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner, on merit. 3. He has raised the issue that there is no proper consideration of the reply furnished in terms of the notice 2025:JHHC:22478-DB 2 issued under Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed directly to this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, has also argued by referring to the provision of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by advancing submission that the mandate as contained in Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 has strictly been complied with and, as such, it is not a case which may be said to be in violation of principle of natural justice while passing the impugned order dated 09.02.2023. 5. It has been contended that there is no violation of principle of natural justice, rather, as per the case of the petitioner no proper consideration of the reply furnished in the light of the provision of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, therefore, two alternative remedies as available by way of appeal and revision are to be taken recourse. 6. It has been contended by referring to the impugned order, particularly, paragraph-3 thereof, that specific reason has been assigned that in course of physical verification of the stock, as referred in the Monthly Stock 2025:JHHC:22478-DB 3 Register, the authority has come to the conclusion that the extracted mines products are being transported illegally without any transit permit. 7. Learned Advocate General, therefore, has submitted that even accepting what has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner denying the fact about illegal transportation of the mining product, then the same being the disputed question of fact, cannot be assessed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, also for the reason that for the aforesaid reason, the alternative remedies have been made available under the statute. 8. This Court has considered the submission made on behalf of the parties. 9. We are conscious that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there is no embargo in entertaining the writ petition, rather, writ petition can well be entertained depending upon the situation, i.e., if there is violation of principle of natural justice or the decision so taken by the authority is in flagrant violation of the statutory provision. 10. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if alternative remedy 2025:JHHC:22478-DB 4 for dispute redressal mechanism is available, the writ court should be loath in exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We have assessed the factual aspect based upon the touchstone of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (Supra) and found from the admitted fact, particularly, by going through the reply furnished in terms of the notice issued under Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 wherein specific aspersion has been made upon the writ petitioner of illegal transportation without any permit challan. 12. The aforesaid aspersion has been refuted by the petitioner in the reply furnished. 13. The authority has passed order and for the purpose of consideration of the said reply even the physical verification of the site has been conducted for the purpose of making comparison with the Monthly Stock Register and after making such comparison of the details furnished in the Monthly Stock Register and the availability of the mines products at the place, it has been found by the authority that the mines products are being transported without any permit challan. 2025:JHHC:22478-DB 5 14. In view of the aforesaid finding based upon the reply furnished by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be construed to be in violation of the principle of natural justice, rather, at best the case of the writ petitioner can be of not appreciating the reply of notice issued in terms of Rule 22(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 15. The moment the issue of appreciation of the factual aspect said to be not properly done, then the same will not come under the fold of violation of principle of natural justice. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability since alternative remedies are available, both by way of appeal and revision, under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 17. The writ petition is dismissed without going to the merit of the issue with the liberty to the petitioner to search out the alternative remedy. 18. If such authority will be approached within a period of three weeks, then the authority shall decide the issue, strictly in accordance with law within further period of six weeks from the date of approaching. 19. It goes without saying that the authority while deciding the issue will not be prejudiced by dismissal of the present writ petition since the writ petition has been 2025:JHHC:22478-DB 6 dismissed on the ground of maintainability and, therefore, the observation has been made that without entering into the merit, we are dismissing the writ petition. 20. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/N.A.F.R.