IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 101 of 2023 (with I.A.No. 6627 of 2023) M/s. J. J. Industries through its Propreitor Shiv Kumar Sahu, aged about 60 years, son of Late Jyoti Sahu, Resident of Village – Chandra, P.O.- Chandra, P.S. Chandankiyari, District – Bokaro. ... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Mines and Geology at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro, District – Bokaro. 4. The Assistant Mining Officer, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro, District – Bokaro. ... Respondents/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant: Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 04/Dated: 17.03.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 6627 of 2023 1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, but, since the impugned order was pronounced on 31.01.2023 and the instant appeal has been filed on 28.02.2023, though without the certified copy which was filed later, it cannot be said that there is any delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Therefore, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal, if any, is condoned. L.P.A. No. 101 of 2023 3. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 31.01.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 3966 of 2022. Page 2 of 3 4. Admittedly, the appellant had filed an application on 16.07.2014 for grant of a mining lease of mineral (stone) in its favour over an estate of 4.5 acres of land mentioned in the said application before the 3rd respondent. 5. The 3rd respondent kept the application pending in spite of certain directions issued by Revisional Authority (Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi) in Revision Case No.45 of 2015 filed by the appellant, on 06.10.2015, 02.03.2016 and 23.03.2017 directing respondent No.3 to consider the application and pass a speaking order in the light of the provision contained in the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 6. The 3rd respondent ignored the said directions and waited till an amendment was made to the said Rules in 2017 which came into effect on 02.03.2017 to Rule 9 and even then, did not pass any order. 7. So, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No.3966 of 2022 seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to decide his application for grant of mining lease. 8. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order disposed of the writ petition holding that the appellant’s application for grant of stone mining lease on Government land was not to be granted and did not require any consideration, since, as per the amended Rules, it can be awarded only by way of auction through an electronic mode. 9. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order did not examine whether the amended Rules would apply with retrospective effect to the application made on 16.07.2014 by the appellant much before the said Rules were made and published on 02.03.2017. 10. It was incumbent on the part of the learned Single Judge to decide the said issue before holding that the appellant’s application for grant of stone mining lease on Government land cannot be granted. Page 3 of 3 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment dt. 31.01.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 3966 of 2022 is set aside. 12. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration, specifically on the issue about the applicability of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 to the appellant’s application dt. 16.07.2014, i.e., whether the said Rules will have retrospective effect or not. The learned Single Judge is requested to hear and decide the writ petition at the earliest. 13. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed, as above. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Manoj/ Pramanik/Cp.2