2025:JHHC:24278-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1183 of 2025 ----- Smt. Deoki Devi, aged about 70 years, Wife of R. N. Agarwal, resident of At Mukharjee Road, P.O. and P.S. – Hirapur, District- Dhnbad … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 3. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. ------ Order No.05/Dated 19thAugust, 2025 1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issues have been involved in the instant writ petition, for the sake of convenience, relief(s) is quoted hereunder :- (i) In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for grant of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the letter No. 1301, dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-6) issued by District Mining Officer, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder, District Mining Officer has been pleased to impose penalty of Rs. 5,48,127/- and interest from 23.02.2019 to 31.05.2024 amounting to Rs. 6,90,189/- being total amount of Rs. 12,38,316/- for the brick year 2018- 19 in violation of Rule 4, 30, 31, 32 and 34(A)(1), 34(I) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule and the petitioner manufactured about 6,70,000 bricks without obtaining Environment Clearance and Consent to Operate from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board being illegal, arbitrary and biased against the petitioner. AND Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for a declaration that Rule 65 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral 2025:JHHC:24278-DB Page 2 Concession Rules 2004 is ultra vires to Section 15(2) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as the Central Government has not delegated the power to the State Government to frame any rule providing for a forum of appeal. AND For grant of any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found entitled with. 2. Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued in the case at length, however, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned A.G. has submitted that the writ petitioner even though has been afforded an opportunity to represent his case before the authority as per the notice dated 31.05.2023, but he has chosen not to appear, as such, it is not a case where the plea of principle of natural justice is said to be taken as defense. Hence, the 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. 3. Upon this, Mr. Shashank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the instant writ petition with a liberty to approach the appellate forum. 4. Considering the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek