( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 390 of 2025 Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), having its registered officer at Ispat Bhawan, P.O. Lodi Road, P.S. Lodi Road, New Delhi, and having one of its Mines known as Manoharpur Ore Mines (under BSL, Bokaro), having its office at Chiria, P.O. Chiria, P.S. Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand), through its Chief General Manager (Law), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, namely, Rajesh Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Sri B.B.Sinha, resident of Sector IVD, 6068, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 5. Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 6. Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority, through Chief Engineer, having its office at FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. Officer Incharge, Manoharpur Police Station, Manoharpur, P.O. Manoharpur, P.S. Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum. … ... Respondents … ( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G. For the JSRRDA : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sharan Toppo, Advocate … Order No.08/dated 25.09.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The basis of filing this writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer is that there are some objections in smooth plying of the heavy vehicle from the mining operation area of transportation of the minerals to its destination due to protest has been caused by the local people, the reason for the same is that the part of the road starts from Meenabazaar to Ponga Junction has been constructed under the Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna Scheme (PMGSY). 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the day when the lease was entered for carrying out the mining operation, the road which was being used was temporary in nature (Kachcha road). Subsequently, under the aforesaid scheme of PMGSY, the Central Government has taken decision to construct the concrete road, however, there, in order to facilitate the movement of the local people living in that area. The road has been constructed with the collaboration of the Central and the State Government under the PMGSY scheme. The newly constructed road under the PMGSY scheme has been used by ( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 3 the petitioner-Company for the movement of the minerals through plying the heavy vehicle over there resulted into the worsening the condition of road and it has become not motorable and even the difficulty has started to be faced by the local people in moving. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner which led in filing the writ petition is that once the State Government has entered into an agreement then it is the accountability of the State to provide the smooth movement of the transportation of the minerals from the mining extraction area to the Ponga Junction, having the distance of 13 K.M.s. The Jharkhand State Rural Development Authority, through Chief Engineer, has been impleaded as respondent No.6. The Authority has been conferred with the power to maintain the road constructed under the PMGSY scheme. 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, representing the respondent No.6 on the strength of counter-affidavit has submitted that a sum of Rs. 25,89,56,200.00/- has been estimated as a repairing cost of the said road. It has been stated that the said cost is to be borne by the petitioner, since, the road primarily being used by the petitioner in carrying out the mineral products from Meenabazaar to Ponga Junction. Due to the plying of the heavy vehicles, the situation of road is not good. 5. The petitioner, to which, has opposed by taking the ground that it is the accountability of the State to provide smooth ( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 4 movement of vehicle from the mining extraction area to the Ponga Junction. 6. This Court has requested the learned Advocate General to explore how the situation will be taken care of. The concerned Authority has filed an affidavit. The learned Advocate General while exploring the situation to handle it, has given a suggestion that the amount which is being deposited in the DMFT, a part thereof can be used for the purpose of repairing and strengthening the said road. The same has been taken note by this Court in the order dated 28th August, 2025. For ready reference, paragraph No. 1, 2 and 3 of the said order are being referred here-in-below :- Reference may be made vide order dated 21st August, 2025, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue of maintenance of road has widely been discussed by the concerned Mines and they have given a proposal that the road could not be maintained solely by the mining operators rather they are willing to contribute for the maintenance of the said road and they have made suggestion to bear the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 4 to 5 crores. He has further submitted that the State Government through Deputy Commissioner may come forward by utilizing the amount which has been deposited in the DMFT fund under which 40% amount is to be spent on the infrastructural development of the mining area. It has been given suggestion that the some quantum of amount which has been earmarked for the infrastructural development under the DMFT, which is to the extent of 40% which has been earmarked under the heading other priorities area which includes roads also. ( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 5 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, has submitted that he is also ready to contribute to the extent of Rs. 5 crores but the same has been said to be not to the extent of the cost which is to be incurred in repairing and strengthening of the said road as has been submitted by the learned Advocate General by referring to Annexure-7 wherein the writ petitioner has agreed to bear the part of the cost of the expenditure which is to be incurred in strengthening of the road. However, subsequently, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, based upon the fresh instruction has submitted that the petitioner- Company is ready to contribute 7.5 crores. 8. This Court is of the view that no specific direction in the backdrop of the submission which has been recorded here-in- above can be passed in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather than it will be just and proper to relegate the petitioner to approach the Dy. Commissioner, Chaibasa to which, learned Advocate General has also agreed so as to look into the matter and take a just and appropriate decision so that the road be repaired and strengthened by mutual understanding in between the petitioner and possibility of extending the money from the DMFT fund. 9. Such order is being passed keeping the facts into consideration that the people of that area is also facing ( 2025:JHHC:30204-DB ) 6 difficulties and hence the order is being passed in the interest of people at large. 10. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, hereby grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa along with all the proposals to take decision, in accordance with law. 11. As per the observation made here-in-above, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. It has been stated by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, showing the bona fide that in future also whatever expenditure will be there, extend to their contribution, the same will be contributed. 13. Interim order dated 19.12.2024 stands vacated. 14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated 25th, September, 2025 P.K.S./Suman N.A.F.R.