2026:JHHC:21436-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5063 of 2026 Upendra Prasad, S/o Late Sidheshwar Saw, R/o Village-Kolebira, PO & PS-Kolebira, District-Simdega (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega 3. The District Mining Officer, Simdega 4. The Certificate Officer (Mines), South Chota Nagpur Circle, at Nepal House, Near BMP Hospital, Doranda, Ranchi ... … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 21.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, seeks the following reliefs: “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), directions(s), order(s) quashing the Letter No. 57 (Annexure-4) dated 24.01.2025 and also the Letter No. 83 dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-4/A) issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Simdega, whereby without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as required under Rule 43 of JMMC Rules, 2017 (as amended), imaginary demand has been made against the petitioner on the basis of the stock lying over his leased area in absence of Transport Challan after expiry of the period of his lease valid till 31.03.2020 and without serving any prior notice, the royalty has been demanded from the petitioner beyond the period of 5 years from the last proper assessment as envisages under Rule 44 of JMMC Rules, 2004. 2026:JHHC:21436-DB 2 Further for quashing of the Notice served under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act in Certificate Case No. 04(SDM)/2025-26 (Annexure-5), being based upon Demand Notice contained in Letter No. 57 dated 24.01.2025 in contravention of Rule 43 and Rule 44 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, the imaginary demand has been raised without any foundation inasmuch as in contravention of the guidelines prescribed for determination of royalty. Further for direction to the respondents to absolve the petitioner from the liability of royalty with respect to the minerals lying over his leased area as stock after expiry of the period of his lease and at the same time, on the basis of the actual dues of royalty mentioned in the Letter No. 57 dated 24.01.2025 for sum of Rs. 60,080/-, the petitioner had deposited the same.” 3. The reliefs are applied for based upon certain presumptions, which cannot be ascertained as being correct or not when exercising our summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are innumerable factual issues involved, including issues about whether the mineral was extracted during the lease period or otherwise, issues about transportation of this material without valid challan etc. These are essentially factual matters which cannot be adjudicated by us under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The petitioner has also challenged the notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 2026:JHHC:21436-DB 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the PDR Act, 1914”). Again, we find that under Section 9 of the PDR Act, 1914, the petitioner has a right to file a petition to deny the liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that such a petition is already filed. This is an additional reason not to entertain this petition, though learned counsel for the respondent disputes that such a petition has been filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act, 1914. 5. The petition is both premature, and the grant of any relief in this petition would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact. For these two reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. 6. We dismiss this petition, but with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible grounds and defences before the Certificate Officer while resisting the demand now raised against the petitioner. We note that if and when a petition for denial of liability is filed by any party, the Certificate Officer is required to give a hearing and determine that petition. The Certificate Officer has been empowered to set aside, modify and vary the certificate issued. 7. Considering all the above aspects, we dismiss this petition with liberty in the above terms. 8. All contentions of all parties are, however, left open. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 21, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 23.07.2026