2025:JHHC:26889-DB 1 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.988 of 2025 ------ Trustline Mining & Minerals represented through its Partner namely, Rashid Ahmed, aged about 47 years, son of Late Ali Ahmed Resident of Near Dam Road, Upper Basti, Barbil, At & P.O.-Barbil, P.S.-Barbil, District-Kendujhar (Odisha) PIN: 758035 …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. & District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) 3. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand) .... .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I ------ C.A.V. on 19.08.2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. 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 and/or direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to issue Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) under Rule 11(a) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 to the petitioner for the applied fresh mining lease of stone over an area of 7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and 44(P), Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana No.22P, District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand) AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable and equitable justice to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 2 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has submitted an application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone over an area of 7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and 44(P), Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana No.22P, District-Sahibganj for 10 years in the prescribed format along with requisite fees and documents in terms of Rule 9 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 and an acknowledgement dated 01.08.2019 in Form-B was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj under Rule 10 of JMMC Rules, 2004. (ii) Due to non-disposal of the application within the prescribed period of 120 days as per Rule 11(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 by the respondents and consequently, due to expiry of the statutory period, the petitioner’s application dated 01.08.2019 became deemed refused and time barred by lapse of time. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several applications of different dates in the prescribed format along with requisite fees and documents and respective acknowledgments in Form-B were issued to the petitioner, but due to non-disposal of the applications within the prescribed period of 120 days by the respondents and expiry of the respective statutory periods, all the aforesaid applications became deemed refused and time barred by lapse of time. 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 3 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 (iii) Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the consent agreements dated 06.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and no objection of the raiyats of the lands of the applied stone mining lease before the respondents in connection with grant of the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. (iv) In pursuant to the application dated 01.08.2019, the Circle Officer, Pathna submitted inquiry report for the applied fresh mining lease of stone in favour of the petitioner before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj vide letter no.12 dated 16.06.2021. (v) Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahibganj Forest Division, Sahibganj has submitted forest clearance for the applied fresh mining lease of stone vide letter no.1508 dated 07.08.2021. (vi) The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.11.2021 before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. The petitioner has also deposited the land possession certificates for the applied fresh mining lease of stone obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide memo no.641 dated 17.12.2024 from the Circle Officer, Pathna. (vii) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.12.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 4 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. (viii) The petitioner also submitted representations dated 30.12.2024 to the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone. (ix) Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have already taken decision to issue Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) in favour of the petitioner but due to some ulterior reasons, the L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease of stone has not been issued to the petitioner till date. Due to non- issuance of L.O.I., the petitioner has not been able to proceed for approval of Mining Plan and for issuance of environmental clearance certificate for the applied mining lease. The matter of issuance of L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease to the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for the last more than five years. The said order is the subject matter of the instant petition. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that there are no faults or laches on the part of the petitioner and the lapse of time and expiry of the statutory periods were caused due to failure on the part of the respondents to dispose of the matter within the respective 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 5 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 statutory periods. 4. It has been contended that the action of the respondents in keeping the matter pending for a long period of time and not issuing the Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) to the petitioner is highly arbitrary, illegal, mala-fide and unjustified and the action of the respondents amounts to denial of statutory rights of the petitioner and hence, the same requires interference by this Court. 5. It has been contended that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents, especially the respondent no.2, is fit to be directed to issue Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) under Rule 11(a) of J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 to the petitioner for the applied fresh mining lease of stone within a specified period for the ends of justice. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent- State 6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State has submitted that since the statutory mandate has not been followed, therefore, there cannot be any direction by the Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It has been contended that the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ application deserves to be rejected in its entirety, primarily on the ground that, the petitioner has not 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 6 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 come out with clean hands as it appears from the record that the application which was presented by the petitioner was not accompanied with the agreement with the raiyats of the proposed mining lease area and initially only an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and afterwards, an agreement has been submitted with respect to one of the Plots, i.e.. Plot No.24 (P) which was submitted in the year, 2021. 8. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not submitted the duly executed lease agreements with the Raiyats with respect to the entire proposed mining lease area and as such, the application of the petitioner itself is incomplete. Moreover, the Raiyats of the lease hold area have appeared before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and submitted an application dated 31.08.2024 raising objections over the grant of letter of Intent to the petitioner as well as the agreements submitted by the petitioner. The raiyats have neither received the agreed consideration amount nor provided employment, as guaranteed by the partners of the petitioner mining firm and moreover, the Raiyats have not given their consent for mining operations over their land. 9. The argument has also been advanced that even accepting what is being submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to be correct, then also, no lease license is to be issued in view of the deemed rejection as the same was 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 7 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 incomplete and the petitioner had only submitted notarized agreements with the raiyats and as such, the lease agreement was later submitted in the year 2021, however, the same was only with respect to one part of the entire mining lease area, hence, the application of the petitioner has remained incomplete and therefore, deemed rejected for want of statutory documents by virtue of Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2017, 2019 and 2020. 10. Learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the writ petition lacks merit and, as such, is fit to be dismissed. Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring the claim of the respondent-State, has submitted that raiyats have raised objection for granting mining lease in favour of the petitioner company and respondent in support of the aforesaid statement has annexed the letter of some of the raiyats and has submitted that the said letter, which is annexed in the supplementary counter affidavit is fabricated one and therefore, the claim of the respondent is not fit to be acceptable. Analysis 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition. 13. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 8 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 submitted an application for grant of fresh mining lease of stone over an area of 7.20 acres of land bearing Plot Nos.24(P) and 44(P), Jamabandi No.10 and 12, Mouza-Kordar Pahar, Thana No.22P, District-Sahibganj for 10 years in the prescribed format along with requisite fees and documents in terms of Rule 9 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 and an acknowledgement dated 01.08.2019 in Form-B was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj under Rule 10 of JMMC Rules, 2004 but due to expiry of the statutory period, the petitioner’s application dated 01.08.2019 became deemed refused and time barred by lapse of time. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several applications of different dates in the prescribed format along with requisite fees and documents and respective acknowledgments in Form-B were issued to the petitioner, but after expiry of the respective statutory periods, all the aforesaid applications became deemed refused by virtue of JMMC and time barred by lapse of time. 15. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the consent agreements dated 06.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and no objection of the raiyats of the lands of the applied stone mining lease before the respondents in connection with grant of the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. 16. In pursuant to the application dated 01.08.2019, the Circle Officer, Pathna submitted inquiry report for the applied fresh mining lease of stone in favour of the petitioner before the District Mining 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 9 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 Officer, Sahibganj vide letter no.12 dated 16.06.2021. 17. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahibganj Forest Division, Sahibganj has submitted forest clearance for the applied fresh mining lease of stone vide letter no.1508 dated 07.08.2021. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.11.2021 before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. The petitioner has also deposited the land possession certificates for the applied fresh mining lease of stone obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide memo no.641 dated 17.12.2024 from the Circle Officer, Pathna. 18. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.12.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for issuance of Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) for the applied fresh mining lease of stone to the petitioner. 19. The matter of issuance of L.O.I. for the applied fresh mining lease to the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for the last more than five years. 20. The aforesaid inaction of authority concerned, is the subject matter of the instant petition. 21. Thus, in the nutshell, it can be stated that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue the Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour of the Petitioner for grant of Mining Lease for stone. 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 10 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 22. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer Rule 9 (क), 9(घ), 9(ङ), 9(च), 11(क) and 11 (ख) and (ग) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, amended in the year 2017, 2019 and 2020 for ready reference, the aforesaid provisions are being referred herein :- “9(1) (क) रैयती भूमि के 03.00 हे० क्षेत्र एवं उससे कि क्षेत्र पर पत्थर, िोरि एवं मिट्टी लघु खमिज के खिि पट्टा उपायुक्त द्वारा स्वीकृ त मकया जाएगा। परन्तु मक सभी सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं झारखण्ड लघु खमिज सििुदाि (संशोधि) मियिावली, 2019 के मियि-6(ख) के परन्तु िें उल्लेखखत क्षेत्र एवं खमिज को छोड़कर सभी रैयती क्षेत्र पर बालू छोड़कर अन्य सभी लघु खमिज के खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृ मत झारखण्ड लघु खमिज िीलािी मियिावली, 2017 िें मिरूमपत प्रावधािों के अन्तगगत इलैक्टामिक िीलािी के िाध्यि से मिदेशक, खाि के द्वारा मकया जाएगा। परन्तु राज्य सरकार आवश्यकतािुसार िीलािी हेतु उपायुक्त को भी प्रामधकृ त कर सकती है। 9(घ) इस अमधसूचिा के मिगगत होिे की मतमि से पूवग िें सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के रैयती क्षेत्र पर खिि पट्टे हेतु प्राप्त आवेदि पत्र स्वतः अयोग्य हो जाएं गे । 9(ङ) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के रैयती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे आवेदि पत्र मजसिें इस अमधसूचिा मिगगत होिे की मतमि से पूवग झारखण्ड लघु खमिज सििुदाि मियिावली, 2004 के मियि-11 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 11 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 अन्तगगत Letter of Intent (आशय का पत्र) मिगगत हो चुका है, उसे इस अमधसूचिा के मिगगत होिे की मतमि से 180 मदिों के अंदर पयागवरण स्वीकृ मत एवं खिि योजिा अमिवायग रूप से सिमपगत करिा होगा, अन्यिा उिका आवेदि स्वतः अस्वीकृ त हो जाएगा । 9(च) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के रैयती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे खिि पट्टे, जो िवीकरण अन्तगगत िे एवं पयागवरणीय स्वीकृ मत खिि योजिा प्राप्त िहीं रहिे के कारण कालमतरोमहत हो गये हो, उिके पट्टे की अवमध पट्टा स्वीकृ मत/िवीकरण की मतमि से 31 िाचग, 2022 तक के मलए अवमध मवस्ताररत िािी जाएगी, बशते मक अमधसूचिा की मतमि के पूवग खिि पट्टा के अस्वीकृ मत /रद्द/व्ययगत होिे का आदेश िहीं पाररत मकया गया है, परन्तु वैसे खिि पट्टे पर कोई खिि तब तक िहीं मकया जा सके गा, जबतक मक खिि हेतु आवश्यक पयागवरणीय स्वीकृ मत/वि एवं पयागवरण मवभाग की स्वीकृ मत खिि योजिा स्वीकृ मत प्राप्त िहीं हो जाता है। आवेदक को सभी वांमछत अिापत्ती 180 मदिों के अन्दर सिमपगत करिा होगा । 9(12) मियि-9 (1) (घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तिा 9 (10) पूवग से स्वीकृ त/आवमदत लघु खमिज के 5.00 हेक्टेयर क्षेत्र से कि क्षेत्र पर भी लागू होंगें।“ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ------- 11(क) खिि प‌ट्टा की स्वीकृ मत के मलए दाखखल प्रत्येक आवेदि के मलए उसकी प्राखप्त को तारीख के 120 मदिों के भीतर आशय का पत्र मिगगत मकया जायेगा। (ख) खिि प‌ट्टा के प्रत्येक आवेदि की स्वीकृ मत सक्षि प्रामधकार से प्रतरणीय स्वच्छता प्रिाण पत्र दाखखल 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 12 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 करिे के 30 मदिों के भीतर कर मदया जायेगा। (ग) खिि प‌ट्टा की स्वीकृ मत के मलए दाखखल आवेदि पत्र पर 120 मदिों के अंदर आशय का पत्र (एलओआई) मिगगत िहीं होिे की खिमत िें आवेदि पत्र स्वतः कालमतरोमहत होकर अस्वीकृ त िािा जायेगा। “ 23. It is evident therefrom that there has been an amendment in the Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9 (क) under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction. 24. It is evident from the aforesaid Rule, particularly, Rule (ग) of Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 that the application submitted for grant of mining lease if not finalized within 120 days, it will be deemed to be rejected. 25. It is the case of the petitioner that after submission of the application of the Petitioner, the same has been deemed rejected due to inaction of the authority concerned and after deemed rejection of the aforesaid application of the Petitioner, several applications have been filed, which is still pending before the authority concerned. 26. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he had applied for grant of mining lease in the year 2019 and since then, 06 years have been elapsed. 27. Further, it would also be evident from the provision, as contained in Rule 9(घ) and Rule 11 of the amended Rule, that all the pending 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 13 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 applications submitted for grant of mining lease before issuance of Amended Rule, on government land or Raiyati land of more than 05.00 hectares, will be automatically deemed to be rejected. 28. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9 (1)(घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तथा 9(10) will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares. 29. It is pertinent to mention herein that the provision as inserted by way of amendment in the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily commanded the authority that the mining lease will only be granted by virtue of auction. 30. Thus, from the aforesaid logical deduction, it is evident that when the renewal and extension cannot be granted after the 31.03.2022 as per the mandate of Rule 9 of Rule 2004, there is no question of granting the fresh lease after 31.03.2022 without following the mandate of Rule 2004, particularly Rule 9 (क) wherein it has been provided that lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction. The aforesaid issue has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the writ petition being W.P. (C) 3560 of 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 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 14 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction. 31. In the instant case, it is evident from the pleading of the counter affidavit that application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease has been deemed rejected by virtue of Rule 9 (घ) and Rule 11 of the Rule 2004. 32. It has further been pleaded that the application which was presented by the petitioner was not accompanied with the agreement with the raiyats of the proposed mining lease area and initially, only an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and afterwards an agreement has been submitted with respect to one of the Plots, i.e., Plot No.24 (P) which was submitted in the year 2021. 33. It has further come on record that the petitioner has filed an affidavit along with the application instead of giving consent of letter (agreement) with Raiyat, namely, Ganga Pahariya for Plot No.24P, the date mentioned in the affidavit is dated 17.07.2019. However, again, the petitioner has submitted the agreement with Massey Pahadin for the same Plot No.24P to the mining office on 06.03.2021. 34. It has further been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the Raiyats of the lease hold area have appeared before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and submitted an application dated 31.08.2024 raising objections over the grant of letter of Intent to the petitioner as well as the agreements submitted by the petitioner. The raiyats 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 15 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 contended that they have neither received the agreed consideration amount nor been provided employment, as guaranteed by the partners of the petitioner mining firm and moreover, the Raiyats have not given their consent for mining operations over their land. The aforesaid letter/application dated 31.08.2024 has been brought on record by way of filing of supplementary counter affidavit by the respondent. 35. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of mining lease was deemed refused in terms of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as the same was incomplete, as the petitioner had only submitted notarized agreements with the raiyats and as such, the lease agreement was later submitted in the year 2021, however, the same was only with respect to one part of the entire mining lease area, hence, the application of the petitioner has remained incomplete and therefore, deemed rejected for want of statutory documents. 36. 36. It requires to refer herein that learned counsel for the petitioner has raised suspicion over the authenticity of the said letter dated 31.08.2024 but it is the considered view of this Court that since authenticity of said application/letter dated 31.08.2024 is the disputed question of fact, hence, the same cannot be adjudicated herein. 37. Further, it is apparent from the perusal of the provision of Rule 5(4) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 that the free 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 16 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 and prior consent of Gram Sabha is mandatorily required for grant of mining lease in scheduled areas. However, in the case of the Petitioner, even though, a Gram Sabha resolution was passed in the proposed area, but the objections have been made by the Raiyats of the land for extending the lease hold rights to the Petitioner for conducting mining operations by making application before the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj which clearly implies that the Raiyats and the members of the local village, are not in favor of the petitioner's proposed mining in the lease hold area, and resultantly, the Letter of Intent was not granted to the petitioner. 38. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect as well as the provisions as stipulated under Rule 2004, particularly Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the JMMC Rule 2004 , is of the view that no positive direction can be passed in favour of the petitioner, since, the petitioner, who had applied for grant of mining lease in the year 2019 which was not allowed in his favour due to deemed rejection, as requisite document has not been submitted as also some of the raiyats of the said land has raised objection by way of filing representation dated 31.08.2024 before the authority concerned. 39. Further, it needs to refer herein that the power which is to be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of issuance of prerogative writs and one of the same is Writ of Mandamus which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 17 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 40. The purpose of a Writ of Mandamus is to ensure to compel action and prevent arbitrary or unlawful inaction by those in authority. Mandamus serves to promote the rule of law, protect individual rights, and ensure that the government functions in accordance with the law. Its ability to compel the performance of a specific duty or act. It is a remedy used to enforce a clear legal right, ensuring that public officials, or government agencies fulfil their obligations in accordance with the law. 41. The Writ of Mandamus is closely associated with the power of judicial review. It allows the higher courts to examine the actions or inactions of public officials or authorities to ensure they are in compliance with the law. The court reviews the legality and validity of the actions and may issue the writ to correct any deficiencies or omissions. 42. But, it is equally settled that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued merely because a person is praying for, one must establish the right first and then, he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for Mandamus. The said position is well settled in the series of decisions. 43. In the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 at paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows: “10 Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 18 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition….” 44. Further, in the decision reported in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that ‘for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 45. In the decision reported in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty. The relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: “11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: “Note 187.—Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 19 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. *** Note 192.—Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. *** Note 196.—Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned—an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.— … The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 20 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149] after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [AIR 1966 SC 334], Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210] and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964] this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149], SCC pp. 152-53) “15. … There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. … In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.” 46. The Mandamus which is being sought for by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 21 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 India is to be issued if there is in-action on the part of the State and if such action is statutorily directed to be performed by the State authority. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356 wherein at paragraph-100 and 101, it has been observed which reads as under: “100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutybound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.” 47. It is, thus, evident that the mandamus is to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any in-action on the part of the State. 48. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position, is now adverting to the facts of the case in order to consider, as to whether there is any in-action on the part of the authority concerned so as to issue mandamus in the present case to issue direction upon them to issue LOI in favour of petitioner. 2025:JHHC:26889-DB 22 W.P.(C) No.988/2025 49. It needs to refer herein that by virtue of Rule 9 and Rule 11 of Rule, 2004, the application which has been filed in year 2019 has already been deemed to be rejected and as per the counter affidavit, some raiyats have raised the objection on the said land, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is the considered view of this Court that there is no requirement herein for issuance of any prerogative writ. 50. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that it is not a fit case where any command is to be issued upon the State for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner. 51. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed. 52. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R.