2025:JHHC:24156-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C. No. 6180 of 2024 ----- 1. Nirmala Gari aged about 50 years W/o Pirwa Kachhap resident of village Pugru, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Hatia, Dist Ranchi. 2. Laxman Kachhap aged about 40 years S/o Late Balram Kachhap 3. Pradeep Kachhap aged about 31 years S/o Ghutru Oraon both residents of village Bermad, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Hatia, Dist Ranchi. … … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building Durwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist Ranchi 2. Secretary, Mines Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Dist Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having its office at Collectriate office, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, Dist Ranchi 4. District Mining Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Collectriate office, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, Dist Ranchi 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi having its office at Collectriate Building, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, Dist Ranchi 6. Circle Officer, Namkum having its office at Circle office Bhawan Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, Dist Ranchi 7. Manglu Oraon S/o Late Bauna Oraon resident of village Bermad, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Hatia, Dist Ranchi … … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate :Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate For the State :Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II :Mr. Srikant Swaroop, A.C. to A.A.G.-II For the Resp. No. 7 :Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate :Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate (Through V.C.) :Ms. Shreya Saurabh, Advocate ------ Order No.08/Dated 18thAugust, 2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 2025:JHHC:24156-DB Page 2 the mandamus commanding upon the respondents especially Respondent No. 4 to stop the blasting for mining work is being done by the private respondent nearby the homestead village of the petitioners in view of same is being done against the provision of law. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to cancel the mining lease of Respondent No. 7 which has been obtained against the provision of law. (iii) And for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to. 2. It if evident from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the grievance is against the respondent no. 7 for carrying out mining operation in the nearby area of the homestead village of the petitioners, causing a significant threat to the people in particular and the land environment in general. 3. This Court has heard the parties and had issued notice. 4. The respondent no. 7 has appeared and filed a counter affidavit, alleging that the proceedings initiated on behalf of the petitioners are vexatious. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II appearing for the State has submitted by referring to the order dated 13.12.2024 that the mining license granted in favour of the respondent no. 7 has been suspended on 12.12.2024. The said order of suspension has been challenged by the respondent no. 7 another writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2025. The said writ petition has been allowed, quashing the order of suspension of the mining license carried out vide order dated 12.12.2024. 2025:JHHC:24156-DB Page 3 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the State, in the counter affidavit has stated that anomalies were found during the preliminary inquiry, and for that reason, the license lease was suspended pending the inquiry. 7. As such, a show cause notice was issued on 04.05.2024. However, the said order of suspension was set aside by the order dated 12.12.2024, passed in W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024. 8. Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7, has submitted, by referring to the various paragraphs of the counter affidavit, that due to the filing of present writ petition, respondent no. 7 has been harassed such an extent that, despite there being no irregularity in the matter of granting the license lease, he has to suffer. 9. The Court poses a question upon the learned counsel for the petitioner that after quashing and setting aside the order of suspension of the lease license, what remains in the present writ petition? 10. Another question has been posed, whether the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, quashing and setting aside the order of suspension, has been assailed by him or not. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that he is having no instruction on this. 12. However, on the pretext of passing of the order by the Co- ordinate Bench, suspending the lease license, he seeks leave of this Court not to press the instant writ petition. 13. An objection has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7, stating that he has been unnecessarily harassed. The question here is whether he is at liberty to avail himself of the remedy available by filing a damage suit against the petitioners. 14. Since the writ petitioners do not want to press the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed and as such disposed of. 2025:JHHC:24156-DB Page 4 15. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek A.F.R.