ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief: “(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing and setting aside Letter issued vide Memo No. 1329/M dated 30.12.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 [Annexure-7], in alleged exercise of power under Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, especially because Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction and/or authority to pass such order, and, further, said order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.” 2. The matter was taken up on 28th July, 2025, to which one of us [Sujit Narayan Prasad, J] was a member. On the said date following order was passed: “1.The matter can be heard if the petitioner deposits at least 50% of the demand amount. 2. Place the matter after the amount is deposited.” 3. Pursuant thereto, an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 14290 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner making a prayer for recall of order dated 28th July, 2025, inter alia, on the ground that the decision which has been sought to be quashed has been passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction to exercise the said power, which has been admitted by the State by issuance of notification as contained in Memo No. 01/2025 -1072 dated 06.05.2025. Another ground has been taken that this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1011 of 2025 [Md. Moktar Momin Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] has held that to impose penalty under Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, power has been conferred upon the authorities i.e., Director, Mines; Additional Director, Mines for the entire State of Jharkhand; and Deputy Director, District/Assistant Mining Officer, of its jurisdiction, by virtue of Notification dated 6th May, 2025, and, there was no such power to the District Mining Officer prior to the issuance of the said notification by the State of Jharkhand. 4. 4. The submission, therefore, has been made that since the Deputy Commissioner was having no jurisdiction when the order impugned has been passed and as such relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal or revision, would not come in the way in entertaining the writ petition in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order imposing penalty by the respondent is dated30.12.2023 and as such the State Government has no power and jurisdiction to impose penalty on or before 6th May, 2025. 6. Further submission has been made that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury in depositing 50% of the disputed amount, especially when the State has conferred power upon the respondent(s) under Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 subsequent to the date of impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, has filed the instant Interlocutory Application for recall of order dated 28th July, 2025. 8. Learned counsel for the State has accepted the fact that by virtue of Notification dated 6 th May, 2025, the power has been conferred upon the authorities i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand; Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction. 9. In the instant case [main case], initially we have passed order, in which one of us [Sujit Narayan Prasad, J] was a member, on 28 th July, 2025 and subsequent thereto, the matter was listed before the Bench having its roster. On 11 th February, 2026, the concerned Bench has passed the following order: “1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though, I.A. No. 14290 of 2025 is styled as an application for recall, in effect, is an application for review of order dated28th July, 2025. 3. Since the order dated 28th July, 2025 was made by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, it is only appropriate that this interim application is heard by the Bench of which Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad is a Member. 4. Accordingly, this matter be placed before the D.B-II for considering the I.A. No. 14290 of 2025.” 10. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, it is only appropriate that this interim application is heard by the Bench of which Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad is a Member. 4. Accordingly, this matter be placed before the D.B-II for considering the I.A. No. 14290 of 2025.” 10. The said Bench, considering the fact that since order dated 28 th July, 2025 was passed by the Bench consisting one of us [Sujit Narayan Prasad,J] as a party to the order dated 28th July, 2025, thereby the present case has been directed to be listed before this Bench. 11. Ground of violation of principles of natural justice has been taken in recalling of order dated 28 th July, 2025 as also the order impugned in the writ petition, which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. The Deputy Commissioner was having no jurisdiction, as per the notification dated 6th May, 2025. 12. The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2589 of 2022 while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated18.09.2025, as would be evident from following paragraphs: “84 .It needs to refer herein that the learned Advocate General has submitted that the Government has come out with notification being Notification No. 212 dated 6 th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand; Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction. 85 .It has further been submitted that if the petitioner intends to approach to the appropriate authority as per the conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 the petitioner may do so. However, he has submitted that the said concession is nothing to do with the ground as has been raised regarding the power to exercise under Rule 54(6) to inflict punishment in terms of the money. 86 .In response, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has submitted that so far it relates to the passing of decision afresh in the changed circumstances of conferment of power vide notification no. 86 .In response, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has submitted that so far it relates to the passing of decision afresh in the changed circumstances of conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 is concerned, he has agreed to the same and has submitted that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration to be done by the competent authority in view of conferment of power to the authorities concerned. 87 . This Court considering the concession as has been recorded on behalf of writ petitioners, as has been given at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, conceding to the submission made by learned Advocate General to approach the authority in pursuance to the conferment of power vide notification dated 06.05.2025 is of the view based upon such concession that the impugned order needs to be interfered with for the purpose of deciding the issue fresh. 88 .Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. 89 .The matters are remitted before the authorities concerned having the power as conferred vide notification no. 212 dated 6 th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) for deciding the issue afresh.” 13. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 193 of 2026, wherein the fact about lack of jurisdiction upon the Deputy Commissioner has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the State and based upon that this Court has passed order of withdrawal of the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 but this Court considering the fact that the impugned order which is the subject matter of instant writ petition has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and as such is having no jurisdiction the date when the order was passed rather the jurisdiction is conferred upon the authorities i.e., Director, Mines; Additional Director, Mines for the entire State of Jharkhand Deputy Director, District/Assistant Mining Officer, of its jurisdiction, by virtue of Notification dated 6 th May, 2025. 14. In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order since itself was passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction, as such it needs to be quashed and set aside. 15. 14. In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order since itself was passed by the authority who was having no jurisdiction, as such it needs to be quashed and set aside. 15. In view thereof, the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 14290 of 2025 filed by the petitioner making a prayer for recall of order dated 28 th July, 2025 is hereby recalled. 16. The impugned order dated 30.12.2023, which is the subject matter of writ petition, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The matter is remitted before the authority concerned having the power for deciding the issue afresh, to initiate a proceeding afresh as per the conferment of power, as conferred vide notification dated 6 th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5), by issuing show cause to the petitioner within period of four weeks from today. 18. The petitioner, immediately after receipt of such show cause, shall respond to the same within a period of two weeks raising all available points for its consideration in accordance with law. The authority concerned will decide the issue afresh on its own merit within a further period of three weeks. 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 20. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.