Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9711 (JHR)

MANGALU ORAON v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/1772/2025 · 2025-04-17

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:11528-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2025 Mangalu Oraon, aged about 50 years, son of Late Bauna Oraon, resident of Village-Bermad, P.O.+P.S.-Hatia, District-Ranchi ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.+District-Ranchi. 3. The District Mining Officer, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.+ District- Ranchi. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines --------- 02/Dated: 17.04.2025 1) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 12.12.20024 passed by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi ( 3rd respondent) suspending the mining license granted to the petitioner on the basis of an order said to be passed by this Court on 12.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024. Copy of the said order is placed by the petitioner at page 55 and in that order this Court had recorded as under: “At the request of learned counsel for the respondent-State, list tomorrow i.e. on 13.12.2024.” 2) We fail to understand how on the basis of the above referred order there could be suspension of the mining lease of the petitioner. It is clear that the 3rd respondent had acted without application of mind while taking the decision to suspend the mining lease of the petitioner. 3) Though, counsel for the respondents sought time to file a counter affidavit, we fail to see how a counter affidavit can 2025:JHHC:11528-DB improve the case of the respondent no. 3, having regard to the contents of the order dt. 12.12.2024 passed by him. 4) Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and the impugned order dt. 12.12.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside. 5) Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02