1 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 54 of 2020 ----- Sushma Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Late Kameshwar Sahu, Resident of Village- Turbui, P.O. and P.S. Kamdara, Dist.- Gumla (Jharkhand) … … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Mines Commissioner at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla (Jharkhand) 4. The Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla (Jharkhand) … … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Res.-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II ------ Order No. 06/Dated 15th January, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 673 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the challenge made to the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Gumla in Revision Case No. 292 of 2012 was affirmed. 3. ` It has been submitted by Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant that though certain irregularities were found in the application preferred for renewal before the Deputy Commissioner but the said certificates were ultimately deposited and even the statutory dues of Rs. 63,442/- was deposited before the Mines Commissioner but the learned Single Judge had not considered these aspects of the matter while dismissing the writ application preferred by the appellant. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II has submitted that the deposit of the statutory dues was after the order was passed in the revision by the Mines Commissioner. It has further been submitted that 2 the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner was also never challenged by the writ-petitioner. 5. It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner was granted a mining lease over Plot No. 623 (part) for crusher stone and an application was preferred by the appellant/writ-petitioner prior to the lease having lost its force on 13.12.2005 and since the Deputy commissioner was not disposing of the said application, a writ application was preferred being W.P.(C) No. 1151 of 2012 which was disposed of 15.06.2012 with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla to dispose of the application preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. 6. Vide order dated 15.09.2012, the application for renewal was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on the ground that certain valid documents were not furnished by the writ petitioner. 7. This resulted in the writ-petitioner approaching the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 292 of 2012 but he was unsuccessful on account of fact that the statutory dues of Rs. 63,442 were not deposited by the writ-petitioner. 8. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that though the renewal application was preferred by the writ-petitioner on 13.12.2005 but he had approached the Court for redressal of his grievance after seven years. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the statutory dues were not deposited by the petitioner prior to disposal of the revision application by the Mines Commissioner. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the statutory dues have subsequently been deposited but there appears to be latches and delays on the part of the writ-petitioner as apart from approaching this Court after seven years with a prayer for disposing of the application which was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla there were certain necessary documents which were also not presented before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and the statutory dues which had accrued were also not deposited prior to the disposal of the revision application by the Mines Commissioner. 3 9. Such facts and circumstances have rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application on 22.07.2019. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the said order and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh-Abhishek/-