2025:JHHC:25474-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 652 of 2022 Anita Agrawal, aged about 57 years, wife of Late Umesh Prasad Agrawal, resident of Village East Gola Road, Upper Bazar, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Steel, Shastri Bhawan, PO- Shastri Bhawan, PS-Parliament Street, District- New Delhi. 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. Gumla, P.S. Sadar, District Gumla, Jharkhand. 5. The District Mining Officer, Gumla, P.O. Gumla, P.S. Sadar, District Gumla, Jharkhand. 6. The Indian Bureau of Mines through its Regional Director Mines, having its office at 318/B Ashok Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shail Lakra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate --------- 06/Dated: 27.08.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantial reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature certiorari for quashing of 2025:JHHC:25474-DB order dated 12.11.2017 (Annexure-6 of this writ application), passed by the State Government, wherein demand to the tune of Rs.13,79,11,935/- was raised on the petitioner's predecessor, as Mining Lease Holder, by the State Government, in relation to Serka Serengdag Bauxite Mines, under the provisions of Section 21(5) of M.M.D.R. Act, following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Common Cause Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature certiorari for quashing of order dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure-8 of this writ application), passed by Three Membered Committee of State Government, constituted in pursuance of departmental letter dated 26.10.2017, and in view of the judgment and order dated 02.08.2017, passed in W.P.(C) No. 114 of 2014, in the case of Common Cause Vrs. Union of India & Ors., by Hon'ble Apex Court. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature certiorari for quashing of order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure-9 of this writ application), passed against the petitioner's predecessor, relating to mining lease in question, in the revision application file no. 06/(17)/2018/RC1, final order no. 108/2021, by the Revisional Authority, in an application preferred under Section 30 of the M.M.D.R. Act and Rule 36 of Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the mandamus commanding upon the respondents to rectify and raise the demand, as per Section 21 (5) 2025:JHHC:25474-DB of M.M.D.R. Act, on the basis of the rationalized rates of the Bauxite Mineral prescribed, fixed and notified by the Indian Bureau of Mines, relating to the excess mining held to be done of the said Mineral, in the lease held area in question, in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, dated 02.08.2017, passed in W.P.(C) No. 114 of 2014, in the case of Common Cause Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (v) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), staying the further proceedings of Certificate Case No. 08/2019-20, relating to the demand raised by the State Government, vide order dated 12.11.2007, under Section 21 (5) of the M.M.D.R. Act, from the petitioner's predecessor in relation to mining lease, to the tune of Rs. 13,79,11,935/- and interest for the period between 12.11.2017 to 10.01.2020 (Rs. 7, 16,38,638/-).” 2. The issue in question is no longer res integra and has been authoritatively decided by learned Division Bench of this in a batch of petitions, lead being W.P. (C) No.3399 of 2019 decided on 4th of March 2025, wherein it was observed as under:- “The issue raised in all these writ petitions is whether the District Mining Officer is empowered to pass an order under Section 21(5) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and recover from the persons, who have been granted mining leases, price of the mineral or not. 2. Admittedly, the power under Section 21(5) to do so is vested in the State Government. 3. Under Section 26(2) of the said Act, the State Government is enabled by notification in the official gazette to 2025:JHHC:25474-DB delegate any power exercisable by it under the statute in relation to matters and subject to certain conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification to its officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification. 4. Petitioners contend that there is no such notification published in the Official Gazette delegating the power under Section 21(5) by the State Government to any officer including the District Mining Officer. 5. Counsel for the respondents has produced a proceeding dt. 02.07.2005 issued by the Governor of the State of Jharkhand conferring jurisdiction on the District Mining Officer in regard to assessment of “royalty” and its realization for the purposes of Section 24 of the Statute. There is no reference in this notification to sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act or to the delegation of the power conferred on the State Government under that provision to the District Mining Officer. In the absence of such a delegation by the State Government to the District Mining Officer of the power under Section 21(5) of the Act, the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction to exercise such a power and demand from the petitioners, by invoking Section 21(5), price of the mineral which is said to have been disposed of by the respective petitioners. 6. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned demand notices issued by the respective District Mining Officers to the petitioners under Section 21 (5) of the Act are all set aside. Liberty is however 2025:JHHC:25474-DB granted to the respondents for demanding and collecting the same through the designated authority under the Statute. 7. Amounts deposited by the petitioners with the respondents during the pendency of the writ petitions shall be refunded to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The above sums will be refunded by the State Government with the interest rate 7% per annum from the date of making of such deposit till the date of actual refund to the petitioners. 9. All other points raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions are left open.” 3. Not only this, the issue has thereafter been decided by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3668 of 2023 decided on 18.08.2025. 4. For the reasons stated above and also for the reasons assigned in W.P. (C) No. 3399 of 2019 and W.P. (C) No. 3668 of 2023, the order dated 12.11.2017 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is quashed on the ground that the District Mining Officer did not have the authority to pass such orders in absence of there being any delegation under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and since the State has now issued a notification dated 06.05.2025 authorising different Officers including the District/Assistant Mining Officers, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the District Mining Officer to decide the lis afresh as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within on or before 30th of November 2025. 2025:JHHC:25474-DB 5. It goes without saying that the parties shall be at liberty to raise all grounds available to them under the laws. 6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2