2026:JHHC:20017-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 195 of 2026 Md. Mukhtar, aged about 51 years, Son of Samid Miyan, Resident of Village - Kharkhar, PO - Nawalshahi, PS -Markachcho, District - Koderma (Jharkhand). … … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District - Koderma (Jharkhand). 3. The Certificate Officer, Mines, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. - Hazaribag, District - Hazaribag (Jharkhand). 4. The District Mining Officer-cum- Requisitioning Officer, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District - Koderma (Jharkhand) .… … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate For the State: Md. Shahabuddin, S.C.-VII --------- 02/Dated: 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and Md. Shahabuddin, learned S.C.-VII for the respondents. With consent, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge‘s order dated 11.12.2025 dismissing appellant’s W.P.(C) No. 5898 of 2023. 3. The appellant challenged the Certificate Officer’s order dated 29.01.2011 by filing W.P.(C) No. 1720 of 2013 before this Court. However, after some arguments, this petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy before the appellate authority by filing an application for condonation of delay. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed for. 4. The appellant, aggrieved by the Certificate Officer’s order dated 29.01.2011 requiring the appellant, inter alia, to pay an amount of 2026:JHHC:20017-DB -2- Rs. 23,73,912/- under the provisions of Section 60(5) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (the said Act), preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) against the order dated 29.01.2011. 5. However, as provided in the 2nd proviso to Section 60(1) of the said Act, the appellant failed to pay 40% of the amount determined by the Certificate Officer. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal was not entertained by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 6. As against the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 10.02.2023, the appellant instituted W.P.(C) No. 5898 of 2023 before this Court. This was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the ground that there was no compliance with the requirement in the 2nd proviso to Section 60(1) of the said Act and also because the petition was barred by delay and laches. 7. Mr Ojha submitted that there was no question of laches because W.P. (C) No. 5898 of 2023 was filed soon after the appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 10.02.2023. He submitted that the appellant had offered to pay 40% of the demanded amount and this offer was never considered by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that substantive rights of the parties cannot be allowed to be defeated on technical considerations like deposit of 40% of the amount etc. 8. Md. Shahabuddin, learned S.C.-VII defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the provisions of Section 60(1) of the said Act are quite clear, and that, without paying 40% of the amount demanded, the appeal was rightly not entertained by the Deputy Commissioner. He submitted that enough opportunities were granted to the appellant to comply with the requirement of the payment, 2026:JHHC:20017-DB -3- and it is only after the appellant failed to make the payment that his appeal was not entertained. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, and though we agree with Md. Shahabuddin’s contention as affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that there was nothing wrong in the Deputy Commissioner refusing to entertain the appellant’s appeal for want of the appellant paying 40% of the amount demanded, still, in the facts of this case, we think that the appellant’s offer to belatedly pay 40% of the amount should have been considered. 10. Mr Ojha has pointed out that the appellant was not in a financial position to pay 40% of the determined amount and further, it was the appellant’s case that determination was illusory and ex facie in breach of the legal provision. He submitted on instructions that the appellant is now in a position to pay 40% of the determined amount within 30 days, should the appellant be given an opportunity to comply with the 2nd proviso to Section 60(1) of the said Act. 11. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we think that the appellant deserves an additional opportunity now that the appellant has offered to make 40% of the determined amount within 30 days from today. 12. Accordingly, we modify the learned Single Judge’s order and set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 10.02.2023 and direct the Deputy Commissioner to entertain the appellant’s appeal against Certificate Officer’s order dated 29.01.2011 provided the appellant, consistent with the statement made on his behalf, pays 40% of the determined amount i.e. 40% of Rs. 23,73,912/- to the respondents within 30 days from today and produces a proof before the Deputy Commissioner of such payment. The appeals should then be entertained 2026:JHHC:20017-DB -4- and decided on their own merits as expeditiously as possible by the Deputy Commissioner. 13. If however, the appellant fails to pay 40% of the amount so determined within 30 days from today without seeking any extensions, then, the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 10.02.2023 which we have now set aside will revive, and the appellant’s Appeal No. 45 of 2018 will stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court. 14. This appeal is partly allowed in the above terms without any order for costs. 15. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order 16. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 07, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 10.07.2026