2025:JHHC:36634-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4378 of 2023 ------ M/S Tiri Sarswati Stone, through its Partner Ashok Kumar Mehta, aged about 40 years. Son of Babulal Mehta, Resident of village- Mahatbania Mahna, P.O. and P.S. Domchanch, District- Koderma (Jharkhand). …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.-Koderma, District- Koderma (Jharkhand). 3. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S.-Koderma, District- Koderma (Jharkhand). ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate Mr. S.N. Saraswati, Advocate Ms. Rashika Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to Ld. AG ------ 05//Dated: 27th November, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: - “(i) That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/scommanding and directing upon the respondents to grant the Mining Lease for stone in favour of the Petitioner without any impediment within the time if any be framed by this Hon'ble Court, since inspite of the Petitioner being first applicant in respect to the area applied by him through an application dated 05.02.2013 and also even after his compliance and observance of all the legal paraphernalia and the formalities and also procurement of Environmental Clearance Certificate (EC) being issued by the State Level Environment Impact Authority, Jharkhand (SEIAA) on the ground of pendency of the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014 being preferred by an objector of the Petitioner the matter could not be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma even after the order and direction made by the revisional authority in the revision of 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 2 the Petitioner being Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014 whereasthe aforesaid Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014 has been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.08.2018 and presently due to disposal of the aforesaid Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014 the matter has been closed without consideration of the matter of the Petitioner on merit; (ii) Further to direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in right perspective by taking into consideration of the fact that the Environmental Clearance Certificate the mandatory requirement for grant of Mining Lease has been procured by the Petitioner being issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide Letter No. EC/SEIAA/2014- 15/591/2014/878 dated 01.05.2015 and at the same time the RevenueAuthority (Circle Officer, Koderma) as well as the local Forest Authority had recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of Mining Lease mentioning therein that the applied land is the government land and is recorded as "PAHAR" in the survey khatian, and due to disposal of the Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014 without considering the merit on the ground of pendency of W.P. (C) No. 6283 of 2014, the Petitioner is entitled to get benefit of relaxation of the period already elapsed for no fault on his part; (iii) Further for grant of such other relief/s, as Your Lordships for which the Petitioner is legally entitled for. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - In respect to Plot No. 5688 (Part) measuring an area of 15.15 acres of land situated under Village-Domchanch, District-Koderma, an application for grant of fresh mining lease was filed in the name of Partnership Firm namely, M/s Tiri Sarswati Stone of which the Petitioner is one of the partner along with other two partners and the application of the Petitioner was acknowledged by the Office of the Respondent No. 3 and the acknowledgment of the application was issued to the Petitioner vide Letter No. 165 dated 05.02.2013 under the signature of the Respondent No. 3. After submission of the aforesaid application, the necessary enquiry and verification were sought for from the Circle Officer, 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 3 Domchanch and the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma and in response to which the Circle Officer vide his Letter No. 567 dated 29.11.2014 recommended the matter for necessary action and at the same time the Divisional Forest Officer vide Letter No. 2778 dated 27.11.2014 also submitted report for necessary action stating therein that the nature of land is recorded as pahari and is beyond the forest area. Further, in awaiting of the respondents, the aforesaid application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of on merit within stipulated time limit and ultimately resulted into deem rejection due to efflux of time. Against the order of deemed rejection the Petitioner moved before the Mines Commissioner in Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014 and thereafter vide order dated 20.08.2015, the aforesaid revision was disposed of setting aside the order of deemed refusal and also directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to examine the issue and hear the interested persons including the intervenor, who were interested for the same plot and area and after giving opportunity of hearing to pass order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid order. Further, before passing of the aforesaid order the Petitioner had already taken steps for approval of his mining plan and upon pursuance of the Petitioner the mining plan was approved by the competent authority vide Memo No. 191 dated 26.12.2014. After having the mining plan being approved by the competent authority, the Petitioner had also taken steps for procuring the Environmental Clearance Certificate and finally vide Letter No. 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 4 EC/SEIAA/2014-15/591/2014/878 dated 01.05.2015, the Environmental Clearance Certificate was issued to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the direction made by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014, the Deputy Commissioner instituted Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015 and where under all the concerned parties were summoned for their appearance on the date of hearing fixed in the aforesaid proceeding. Further, on issuance the notice by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, the Petitioner and other concerned parties appeared and submitted their reply in favour of their case and finally after perusing the materials available on record and the reply filed by the concerned parties including the Petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2015, the aforesaid proceeding was disposed of in light of the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 12.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014. Further, with respect to dispute for common area being Plot No. 5688 (Part) area of 12 acres of land under Khata No. 1340 of Village-Domchanch, over which the Petitioner was applicant and fulfilling all the conditions for grant of mining lease in his favour, the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014 preferred by the concerned party in the name of M/s Maa Chanchalni Stone Chips has been dismissed on merit by a bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.08.2018. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said information with regard to the update status of the aforesaid Writ Petition was conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in the last week of 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 5 August, 2018, but no heed was paid upon the same and the matter concerning to grant of mining lease over the lands in question could not be restored by Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. Further, due to having the matter concerning to grant of mining lease in favour of the Petitioner remain sub-judiced from the year 2013 till date, due to amendment in the rules in the year 2017, the Petitioner may be deprived from his genuine and legitimate right for being lessee. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid the present writ petition has been preferred wherein direction was sought upon the respondent for grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner is fairly entitled for the consideration for sanction of the mining lease of the proposed site when all formalities have already been complied with as reflected from the documents available on the record. 4. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid facts of the case referred hereinabove, has submitted that the instant writ petition is fit to be allowed and direction upon the respondents may be passed for grant of mining lease to the petitioner. Submissions of the learned counsel for the state: 5. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to learned Advocate General has submitted that the JMMC Rules 2004 has already been amended in the year 2017 and subsequently in year 2019 by insertion of the relevant provision in Rule 9 and other allied provisions of JMMC Rules, 2004 wherein the statutory restriction has been imposed for grant of lease to carry out the mining operation only on the basis of the auction and not 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 6 on the basis of the application made by one or another. 6. Learned State counsel based upon the implication of the said statutory command as per the amendment inserted in the JMMC Rules, 2004 has submitted that the petitioner as on date cannot be given any relief. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has further submitted that the issue of application of Rule 9 of JMMC Rule 2004 has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2939 of 2023 on 1st September, 2025 and also in W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2025. Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact that issue of application of relevant amended provision of Rule 9 of JMMC Rule 2004 has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2939 of 2023 on 1st September, 2025 and also in W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2025. Analysis 9. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2939 of 2023 on 1st September, 2025. 10. It is evident that in respect to Plot No. 5688 (Part) measuring an area of 15.15 acres of land situated under Village-Domchanch, District- Koderma, an application for grant of fresh mining lease was filed in the name of Partnership Firm namely, M/s Tiri Sarswati Stone of which the Petitioner is one of the partners along with other two partners. 11. After submission of the aforesaid application, the necessary enquiry and verification were sought for from the Circle Officer, Domchanch and the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma and in response to which the Circle 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 7 Officer recommended the matter for necessary action and at the same time the Divisional Forest Officer also submitted report for necessary action stating therein that the nature of land is recorded as pahari and is beyond the forest area. 12. But the aforesaid application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of on merit within stipulated time limit and ultimately resulted into deem rejection due to efflux of time. 13. Against the order of deemed rejection the Petitioner moved before the Mines Commissioner in Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014 and thereafter vide order dated 20.08.2015, the aforesaid revision was disposed of setting aside the order of deemed refusal and also directing the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to examine the issue and hear the interested persons including the intervenor, who were interested for the same plot and area. 14. Pursuant to the direction made by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi in Rev. Case No. 11 of 2014, the Deputy Commissioner instituted Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015 and where under all the concerned parties were summoned for their appearance. 15. Further, on issuance the notice by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, the Petitioner and other concerned parties appeared and submitted their reply in favour of their case and finally after perusing the materials available on record and the reply filed by the concerned parties including the Petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2015, the aforesaid proceeding was disposed of in light of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014. 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 8 16. Further the said writ petition i.e W.P.(C) No. 6283 of 2014 preferred by the concerned party in the name of M/s Maa Chanchalni Stone Chips has been dismissed on merit by a bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.08.2018. 17. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said information with regard to the update status of the aforesaid Writ Petition was conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in the last week of August, 2018, but no heed was paid upon the same and the matter concerning to grant of mining lease over the lands in question could not be restored by Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 18. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid the instant writ petition has been preferred by which direction has been sought upon the respondents to grant the mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner. 19. It needs to refer herein that the factual aspect which is not in dispute that the lease agreement has not been acted upon till date and JMMC Rule 2004, particularly rule 9 of the Rules 2004 has been amended in year 2017 and consequently in the year 2019 by insertion of the relevant provision due to the implication of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590, and in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy. And Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516. 20. This Court, therefore, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 9(1) (क), 9(ङ), Rule 9(च), Rule 9(छ) and Rule 9(12) of the JMMC Rules for the purpose of consideration of lis. "9 (1) (क) खनन प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ त करने हेतु आवेदन-[(1) (क)- रैयती भूमम के 03.00 है० ्ቌे्ቔ एवं उससे कम ्ቌे्ቔ पर प्቉र, मोरम एवं मम्ሾी 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 9 लघु खमनज के खनन प्ሾा उपायु्ሹ ्ቛारा ्ቭीकृ त मकया जाएगा। पर्ቌु मक सभी सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान (संशोधन) मनयमावली, 2019 के मनयम-6 (ख) के पर्ቌु में उ्ቤेखखत ्ቌे्ቔ एवं खमनज को छोड़कर सभी रैयती ्ቌे्ቔ पर बालू छोड़कर अ्቗ सभी लघु खमनज के खनन प्ሾा की ्ቭीकृ मत झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज नीलामी मनयमावली, 2017 में मनरूमपत ्ቚावधानों के अ्ቌगगत इलै्ሴामनक नीलामी के मा्ቖम से मनदेशक, खान के ्ቛारा मकया जाएगा। पर्ቌु रा्ቋ सरकार आव्ብकतानुसार नीलामी हेतु उपायु्ሹ को भी ्ቚामधकृ त कर सकती है। 9(घ) इस अमधसूचना के मनर्गत होने की मतमथ से पूवग में सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रैयती ्ቌे्ቔ पर खनन प्ሾे हेतु ्ቚा्቎ आवेदन प्ቔ ्ቭतः अयो्ቆ हो जाएं गे । 9(ङ) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे0 ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रैयती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा्቎ वैसे आवेदन प्ቔ मजसमें इस अमधसूचना मनगगत होने की मतमथ से पूवग झारख्ቄ लघु खमनज समनुदान मनयमावली, 2004 के मनयम 11 अंतगगत Letter of Intent (आशय का प्ቔ) मनगगत हो चुका है, उसे इस अमधसूचना के मनगगत होने की मतमथ से 180 मदनों के अंदर पयागवरण ्ቭीकृ मत एवं खनन योजन अमनवायग रूप से सममपगत करना होगा, अ्቗था उनका आवेदन ्ቭतः अ्ቭीकृ त हो जाएगा। 9 (च) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रैयती ्ቌे्ቔ पर ्ቚा्቎ वैसे खनन प्ሾे, जो नवीकरण अ्ቌगगत थे एवं पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत खनन योजना ्ቚा्቎ नहीं रहने के कारण कालमतरोमहत हो गये हो, उनके प्ሾे की अवमध प्ሾा ्ቭीकृ मत/नवीकरण की मतमथ से 31 माचग, 2022 तक के मलए अवमध मव्ቜाररत मानी जाएगी, बशते मक अमधसूचना की मतमथ के पूवग खनन प्ሾा के अ्ቭीकृ मत /र्ቌ/्ቤयगत होने का आदेश नहीं पाररत मकया गया है, पर्ቌु वैसे खनन प्ሾे पर कोई खनन तब तक नहीं मकया जा सके गा, जबतक मक खनन हेतु आव्ብक पयागवरणीय ्ቭीकृ मत/वन एवं पयागवरण मवभाग की ्ቭीकृ मत खनन योजना ्ቭीकृ मत ्ቚा्቎ नहीं हो जाता है। आवेदक को सभी वांमछत अनापती 180 मदनों के अ्቎र सममपगत करना होगा 9(छ) सरकारी ्ቌे्ቔ एवं 05.00 हे0 ्ቌे्ቔ से अमधक के रैयती ्ቌे्ቔ पर 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 10 ्ቭीकृ ता नवीकृ त खनन प्ሾे की अवमध यमद उनकी ्ቭीकृ मत/नवीकरण की अवमध [31 माचग, 2022 के बाद की मतमथ हो,तो उनकी अवमध उनकी ्ቭीकृ मत/नवीकरण की अवमध तक मवमधमा्቗ रहेगी। 9(12) मनयम-9 (1) (घ), 9(1) (ङ), 9 (1) (च), 9 (1) (छ) तथा 9 (10) पूर्व से ्ቭीकृ त आवमदत लघु खमनज के 5.00 हे्ሴेयर ्ቌे्ቔ से कम ्ቌे्ቔ पर भी लागू होंगें।" 21. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the JMMC Rules, 2004 and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9(1) (क) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can be granted on holding a proper auction. 22. It is evident from the provision of Rule 9(च) 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 the period has been extended up to the period of 31.03.2022. 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. 23. 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 but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9(1) (क), the lease is to be granted by way of auction. 24. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the statutory command after the aforesaid amendment is for allotment of the mining 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 11 lease only on the basis of the auction and a restriction has been put for the renewal of the lease on the basis of the application made by one or the other. 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. 25. At this juncture it requires to refer herein that the learned counsel for the parties has submitted that similar issue of Rule 9 of rules 2004 has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 1st September, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2939 of 2023. 26. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated 1st September, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2939 of 2023, have found that the issue, i.e. application of rule 9 of Rules 2004 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- 18. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the JMMC Rules, 2004 and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9(1) (क) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can be granted on holding a proper auction. 19. Further, it would also be evident from the provision as contained in 9(घ) of the amended Rule, 2004 that all the pending applications submitted for grant of mining lease before issuance of Amended Rule, 2017, on government land or raiyati land of more than 05.00 hectare will be automatically deemed to be rejected. 20. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9(ङ), of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules wherein it has been stipulated that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected. 21. Further, there is a proviso under Rule 9(ङ) which was 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 12 added by the amendment dated 28.09.2020 and as per the said proviso, in case where due to delay in granting Environmental Clearance beyond 180 days, which is not attributable to a lessee, and the lease agreement was not approved, in those cases the Revisional Authority was given power to decide the matter on merits. 22. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the statutory command after the aforesaid amendment is for allotment of the mining lease only on the basis of the auction and even also restriction has been put for the renewal of the lease on the basis of the application made by one or the other. 23. Further, we have perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, vide order dated 08.08.2025 wherein it has been categorically observed 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 but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9(1) (क), the lease is to be granted by way of auction, 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 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 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 13 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 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 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 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 14 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 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.” 24. Further, in the present case, the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that due to non- submission of the required documents, the application of the petitioner became time barred as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004. 25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law as well as the factual aspect, the question, therefore, is that even if the question of laches as has been pointed out on behalf of the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration by answering the same, in favour of the writ petitioner, then, what relief the petitioner will get in view of the statutory restriction for grant of mining lease after the amendment in the Rule, 2004 whereby the procedure for grant of lease has been amended and now the applicant has to take part in auction for grant of lease. 26. This Court, in backdrop of the aforesaid, is of the view that the petitioner, in view of the statutory restriction imposed in view of amendment in the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner merely because the application is pending and so far as the issue of laches is concerned even on consideration of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted. 27. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has found that the issue involved herein particularly the issue of grant of lease in the light of amended provision of rule 9 of Rules 2004 has already been decided in W.P.(C) No.2939 of 2023 on 1st September, 2025. 2025:JHHC:36634-DB 15 28. This Court, in backdrop of the aforesaid, is of the view that the petitioner, in view of the statutory restriction imposed in view of amendment in the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner merely because the application for grant of mining lease is pending. 29. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4378 of 2023 is disposed of, in terms of the judgment dated 1st September, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.2929 of 2023. 30. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 27th November, 2025 Samarth/ A.F.R. Uploaded on 08.12.2025