2025:JHHC:23688-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4620 of 2023 ----- Md.Shamim, aged about 47 years, S/o Md.Kalim, R/o Makhani Kaswa, Arazimakimpur, Rajmahal, PO and PS:Taljhari, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, District: Ranchi. 3.The District Mines Officer. Sahibganj, PO, PS and District Sahibganj. … … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, Adv. For the State : AC to AG ------ Order No.07/Dated 14th August, 2025 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby and whereunder following relief(s) has been sought for :- “i.For quashing of demand notice issued vide memo no.569 dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-5) under the signature of District Mining Officer, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder a unilateral decision has been taken and the petitioner has been directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 11,84,17,129/- for illegal mining of stones worth 2,57,428.54 tonnes in Mouza Bekchuri under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 within a period of 10 days, without even a show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity to deny this alleged and imposed liability. ii. During the pendency of the instant application the operation, execution and implementation of the demand 2025:JHHC:23688-DB 2 notice issued vide memo no. 569 dated 31.05.2023 be stayed. iii. During the pendency of the present application, no coercive measures/action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the demand notice issued vide memo no. 569 dated 31.05.2023.” 2. Serious objection has been raised on behalf of the State regarding maintainability on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. 3. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has sought for leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition so as to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute. 4. There is no objection on the part of learned counsel for the State. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. However, liberty is reserved with the writ petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. If such appeal will be filed within two weeks, the Appellate Authority will decide the said appeal on its own merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the parties concerned, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such appeal. 7. The instant writ petition stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) KNR/