2025:JHHC:23757-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4260 of 2020 Sundari Devi (aged about 63 years) legal heir of late Ramkumar Prasad Singh, resident of Addi Gabla Durga Mandap, P.O.+P.S.- Jhumri Tilya, Dist-Koderma … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 3. The District Mining Officer, P.O.+P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist-Hazaribagh … Respondents ---------- Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines-III Mr. Kumar Pawan, A.C. to S.C. Mines-III ----- Order No.12/Dated 14.08.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s) :- “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) /order(s) quashing the notice contained in Memo No. 851 dated 13/08-2019 (Annex-6) issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh whereby despite the Petitioner being entitled for exemption of dead rent w.e.f. 12.04.2016 till maturity of his mining lease for stone i.e till 07.09.2020 and moreover despite the fact that the mining operation of the Petitioner ceased to operate by the order contained in Memo No.676 dated 12.04.2016 and having no fault on his part, and after expiry of term of his mining lease on 07.09.2020 dead rent for a sum of Rs.6,51,310 has been calculated till March 2020; on the ground of filing application for renewal of the alleged lease and furthermore the said dead rent has been calculated against the direction contained in letter no-3(24) 2001 MV issued by the Ministry of Steel and Mines, Govt. of India wherein it has been clearly stated that the dead rent has been exempted for such period when the lessee was not legally allowed to carry mining activities even if 2025:JHHC:23757-DB 2 the lease was restored subsequently, and, the Petitioner further prays that after quashing of the aforesaid demand notice, to direct the Respondents to serve the actual demand of dues of royalty to the Petitioner so that she may deposit the same without any hesitation for renewal of her mining lease and/further for grant of such other relief/reliefs for which the Petitioner is legally entitled for.” 2. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued the case at length, however, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned S.C. Mines-III has submitted that this writ petition may not be entertained in view of the fact that there are two alternate remedies by way of appeal as well as revision is available to the writ petitioner. 3. Upon this, Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the appellate forum. 4. Considering the aforesaid fact, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within four weeks. 5. The appellate authority will pass order, in accordance with law, within three months thereafter. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rajnish/R.K.