2025:JHHC:32288-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2867 of 2025 ……………. M/s. Rashtriya Stone Chips, (A Proprietorship concern), having its office at Village Tham, P.O. Dhap, P.S. Chandwara, District Koderma, PIN 825409 (Jharkhand), through its Proprietor, Samrat Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Late Pradip Singh, resident of Village Tham, P.O. Dhap, P.S. Chandwara, District Koderma, PIN 825409 (Jharkhand) … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002 (Jharkhand). 2. Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002 (Jharkhand). 3. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, having its office at District Collectorate, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, PIN 825410 (Jharkhand). 4. District Mining Officer, Koderma, having its office at District Collectorate, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, PIN 825410 (Jharkhand). … …Respondents … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General … Order No. 03/dated 15.10.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing the order passed by Respondent- authorities as contained in Memo No. 297/M, Koderma dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure-4), wherein application filed by Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 3.15 acres situated at Mouza Tham, Khata Nos. 127, Plot No. 4617 (part), 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 2 District Koderma, has been rejected in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to consider and consequentially grant renewal of mining lease in favour of Petitioner, pertaining to mining lease of stone boulders over an area of 3.15 acres situated at Mouza Tham, Khata Nos. 127, Plot No. 4617 (part), District Koderma, for a period of 10 years commencing from 29.06.2022 to 28.06.2032 and consequentially grant lease in favour of Petitioner over the aforesaid area. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (for short ‘JMMC Rules’) vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-5), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure- 6) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-7) do not prohibit grant of renewal of mining lease, but only provides, inter alia, that any new lease over 3 hectares of land would be granted in terms Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-8).” 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:- (i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the plot No. 4617(part) corresponding to Khata No. 127 measuring an area of 3.15 acres of land situated under Mouza Tham, a mining lease for stone was granted to the petitioner sometime in the year 2012 for a period of 10 years, w.e.f. 29.06.2012 to 28.06.2022. (ii) During the pendency of subsistence of mining lease deed, proprietor of petitioner-firm was changed, which was duly recognized by 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 3 Respondents vide Transfer Lease Deed dated 20th November, 2021. In Transfer Lease Deed also, it was clearly mentioned that lease of the petitioner is valid up-to 28.06.2022. (iii) Prior to expiry of mining lease deed on 06.04.2022, filed an application for renewal of mining lease in statutory Form ‘F’ along with renewal application and also enclosed requisite challan towards deposit of Renewal Fee of Rs. 5,000/-. (iv) Although, the petitioner filed application for renewal of its mining lease, but said renewal application of petitioner has not been processed by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and it was verbally informed to petitioner that its renewal application is deemed to be rejected on the ground of its not being processed. However, no order was passed in respect of the same. Under the said circumstances, petitioner preferred a revision application in the court of Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi being Revision Case No. 21 of 2025, challenged alleged deemed rejection of the mining lease renewal application. (v) During the pendency of said revision application, petitioner has been served with a copy of Order contained in Memo No. 297/M, Koderma dated 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 4 07.04.2025, wherein, application for renewal of mining lease has been rejected by Respondent- authorities on the ground that it has become time barred and is deemed to have been rejected. (vi) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the fact in right perspective. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by this Court. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 5 is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- 15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e., (i) Whether the lease can be renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension. (ii) Whether seeking extension of the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period. (iii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule 9(च), wherein, the embargo has been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022. (iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 6 Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case. (v) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is held to be per incuriam. 22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 (ङ) and (च), wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9(च) provides that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022. 23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022. 24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(छ) as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 7 but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction. 25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (ज)(12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9(च) will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares. 26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9(ङ). 27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9 (च) putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction. 42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 8 District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9(च) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9(ङ) of the JMMC Rules and once the application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9(च). 46. The learned counsel for the 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 9 petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision.” 9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has found that the issues involved herein are identical to that of the case, which has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 10. Further, it requires to refer herein that this Court has also decided the issue of application of Rule 9(च), in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: “34. It is evident that the provision of deemed renewal has been done away from the statutory provision which was initially till 31.03.2020 and subsequently by virtue of the amendment, the said period was extended up to 31.03.2022. 35. The provision as inserted by way of amendment in the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily commanded the authority that on or after 31.03.2022 the mining operation will only be allowed to be carried out by virtue of auction and not renewal.” 11. Further, it needs to refer herein that the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024 has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 17.04.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).16737 of 2025. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 2025:JHHC:32288-DB 10 No.3560 of 2025, as also, the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, which has been affirmed on 17.04.2025 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).16737 of 2025. 13. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated 15th October, 2025 P.K.S./Suman A.F.R.