Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Mahakal Stone Works vs State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6645 of 2024
------
M/S. Mahakal Stone Works, through its Prop. Somraj Bhagat, aged
about 36 years, Son of Dilip Bhagat, resident of Bhagatpara, P.O.
and P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Mines
and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, P.O., P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
4. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, P.O., P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
5. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand
through its Member Secretary, having its office at Podhshala
Campus, near Dhurwa Bus Stand, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, PIN 834004. ..... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I
Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I
For Resp. No.5 : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
------
10/Dated: 26.08.2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: -
(i) For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), 1 2025:JHHC:25429-DB and/or direction(s), for quashing/setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Revision Case No.31/2021 by Respondent No.2-Learned Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder the revision petition of the petitioner filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur contained in Memo No.254, dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-3) has been dismissed in light of amended Rule 9(i) (Anga) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent no.5 to issue Environmental Clearance to the petitioner as being no fault on the part of the petitioner.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:-
(i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that in respect of Plot No.126 to 130 and 151(p) measuring an area of 10.18 acres of land situated under Mauza Belpahari, District-
Pakur, an application for grant of fresh mining lease for stone was filed by the petitioner along with all the requisites and the prescribed fee before the concerned respondents 2 2025:JHHC:25429-DB on 05.05.2016 and after expiry of the said application, again filed a fresh application on 03.09.2016 and 07.01.2017. Save and except, Plot no.127, rest other lands as applied by the petitioner are Raiyati Lands and upon payment of adequate compensation, the consent was given by the respective land owners.
(ii) On Submission of the aforesaid application by the petitioner, Gram Sabha was also held and villagers gave their approval for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) After getting consent of Gram Sabha in favour of the petitioner, the necessary enquiry was also made at the level of the Circle Officer, Hiranpur and the Circle Officer, upon the report of the Karamchari, submitted his report vide letter no.549 dated 02.09.2016 to the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur for necessary action. The D.F.O., Pakur Forest Sub-Division, Pakur also submitted report vide letter dated 20.07.2016 affirming that the applied land is not forest and is situated beyond the distance from the notified forest.
(iv) Thereafter, the Letter of Intent was also issued to the petitioner in respect to all the lands applied by him vide letter dated 19.01.2017 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 3
2025:JHHC:25429-DB After issuance of Letter of Intent, the petitioner has also got his mining plan approved by the competent authority and the approval was made vide memo no. 265 dated 03.06.2017 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Mines, S.P. Circle, Dumka.
(v) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has also filed an application for issuance of Environmental Clerance certificate along with all relevant papers and requisite fee before the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short "DEIAA").
(vi) After all the legal formalities being performed by the petitioner within time frame as also the letter of intent already issued to the petitioner on 19.01.2017, the Environmental Clearance certificate could not be granted to him and the matter was delayed.
(vii) The matter of petitioner concerning to grant of Environmental Clerance certificate remain pending for about two years before the DEIAA, Pakur and in pursuant to amendment in Rule, the said authority became defunct and the power of the same was assigned to the SEIAA and thus, the application of the petitioner along with other applicants was referred to the SEIAA, Ranchi from the DEIAA vide letter dated 18.03.2019 issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairperson, 4 2025:JHHC:25429-DB DEIAA and the same is still pending.
(viii) During the pendency of the matter concerning to grant of Environment Clerance certificate of the petitioner before the SEIAA, Ranchi since March, 2019, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease, dated 07.01.2017 has been refused on the ground of non- submission of Environmental Clerance within the prescribed time limit expired on 18.07.2017 and the information to that effect was conveyed to the petitioner vide memo no.254 dated 03.03.2021 issued under the signature of the respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner, Pakur.
(ix) Being aggrieved from the said deemed refusal order, the petitioner filed a Revision Case No.31 of 2021 before the Respondent No.2-Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2024 as contained in memo no.1718/MC.
(x) The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is fairly entitled for the consideration for sanction of the mining lease of the proposed site when all formalities have already been complied with as reflected from the documents available on the record. But it has not been finalized due to non- grant of 5 2025:JHHC:25429-DB environmental clearance certificate which shows the non-application of mind by the authorities.
4. It has been submitted that while passing the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has failed to appreciate this fact that despite having no fault or any lapses on the part of the petitioner in filing the alleged Environmental clearance certificate within time, rather owing to lethargic and callous approach, of the authority, the same could not be granted to him till date, while, the letter of intent has already been issued to the petitioner on 19.01.2017.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since Letter of Intent has been issued in favour of the petitioner, therefore, it is the duty of the State to execute the mining lease.
6. It is stated that the grant of environmental clearance certificate is not within the control of an applicant and such certificate is to be granted by an instrumentality of the State ie. SEIAA, Ranchi. If the instrumentality of state fails to discharge its duty within the stipulated time, the petitioner or any other applicant cannot be made to suffer despite the fact that said applicant has already fulfilled all requisite criteria for grant of mining lease and has also applied for environmental clearance certificate within the stipulated time.
7. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has put his reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines Vrs. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary and Ors. (W.P.(C) 6 2025:JHHC:25429-DB No.5888 of 2019 and analogous case) as also on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Grands Mining (A Partnership Firm), Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1701.
8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that in view of cumulative facts stated herein above, the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 is liable to be quashed and set-aside, being wholly illegal and arbitrary. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-State
9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted by taking aid of the provision of JMMC Rule, 2004 that as per Rule 11 (a) of the JMMC Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide order dated 13.01.2017 approved the letter of intent, which was supplied to the applicant vide letter no. 107, dated 19.01.2017 of the District Mining Office, Pakur, but in the meantime there was an amendment in the JMMC Rules, 2004, which came into effect from 02.03.2017 and Rules 9(1) (d), 9(1)(e), 9(1) (f) and 9(1)(g) were added by way of amendment.
10. Learned counsel for State therefore has submitted that as per the abovementioned provisions and due to the fact that the applicant (petitioner herein) did not provide Environment Clearance within a period of 180 days from 02.03.2017, as such, the application submitted by the applicant got self-rejected and the Letter of Intent issued vide letter no. 107, dated 19.01.2017 also got cancelled. The same was informed to the applicant, vide memo no. 254, dated 7 2025:JHHC:25429-DB 03.03.2021.
11. It has further been contended that the applicant/writ petitioner had applied for Environmental Clearance on 06.06.2017 before the District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Pakur (DEIAA). But the same was rejected by the DEIAA on 01.09.2017 on the ground that due to inclusion of the government land in the said project as also due to not following of procedure of payment of salami and other fees.
12. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the case, i.e., M/s Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines (supra), upon which, reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since, the said order has been passed on the concession given by the learned state Counsel, as such, on merit, the said case has not been contested and also the fact of the said case was different to that of the present case.
13. It has been contended that the quasi-judicial authority, on consideration of legal implication of the aforesaid provision and taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has passed an order, hence, the same does not require any interference. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 SEIAA:
14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- SEIAA that from perusal of the remarks column it is evident that due to involvement of Government land in the petitioner's project & also 8 2025:JHHC:25429-DB non-payment of salami etc. Environmental Clearance could not be granted by DEIAA, Pakur and in this regard, guidelines were sought from the Directorate of Mines, Jharkhand.
15. It has further been submitted that vide Letter No. 54 dated 07.02.2019 issued by Member Secretary, SEIAA to all Deputy Commissioners of Jharkhand, proposal of pending projects of minor minerals at DEIAA level was requested to be forwarded to SEIAA along with online application forms but till now, no application with requisite documents of project has been submitted by petitioner through PARIVESH Portal which is mandatory. As such, the project of the petitioner could not be processed and taken up for appraisal as also for grant of Environmental Clearance in accordance with the provisions of law.
16. Learned counsel has further submitted that SEIAA has taken all steps for granting EC to the pending eligible projects of minor minerals at district level during tenure of DEIAA, but since online application has not been received from the petitioner, his project could not be appraised.
Analysis
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the reasons assigned by the quasi-judicial authority negating the claim of the writ petitioner.
18. It is evident from the factual aspects that the writ petitioner in respect of Plot No.126 to 130 and 151(p) measuring an area of 9 2025:JHHC:25429-DB 10.18 acres of land situated under Mauza Belpahari, District- Pakur, has filed an application for grant of fresh mining lease for stone along with all the requisites and the prescribed fee before the concerned respondents on 05.05.2016 and after expiry of the said application, again filed a fresh application on 03.09.2016 and 07.01.2017.
19. Consequent thereto, after getting consent of Gram Sabha in favour of the petitioner, the necessary enquiry was also made at the level of the Circle Officer, Hiranpur and the Circle Officer, upon the report of the Karamchari, submitted his report vide letter no.549 dated 02.09.2016 to the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur for necessary action. The D.F.O., Pakur Forest Sub-Division, Pakur also submitted report vide letter dated 20.07.2016 affirming that the applied land is not forest and is situated beyond the distance from the notified forest.
20. Thereafter, the Letter of Intent was also issued to the petitioner in respect to all the lands applied by him vide letter dated 19.01.2017 issued under the signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. After issuance of Letter of Intent, the petitioner has also got his mining plan approved by the competent authority and the approval was made vide memo no.265 dated 03.06.2017 issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Mines, S.P. Circle, Dumka.
10
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
21. The petitioner has also filed an application for issuance of Environmental Clerance certificate along with all relevant papers and requisite fee before the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short "DEIAA") but environment clearance certificate has not been granted to the petitioner and accordingly LOI has been withdrawn by the authority concerned on the ground of non-compliance of the mandate of JMMC Rule 2004.
22. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease, dated 07.01.2017 has been refused on the ground of non-submission of Environmental Clerance within the prescribed time limit expired on 18.07.2017 and the information to that effect was conveyed to the petitioner.
23. Being aggrieved from the said deemed refusal order, the petitioner filed a Revision Case No.31 of 2021 before the Respondent No.2-Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2024 as contained in memo no.1718/MC. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
24. On the background of the aforesaid factual aspect, the seminal issue involved in the case is that;
"whether the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the revision application of the petitioner in the light of Rule 9(1) (ङ), of the JMMC Rule 2004 as amended in 2017 and 2020, is justified."
11
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
25. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid issue deems it fit and proper to refer the relevant provision of Rule 9(1) (क), 9(ङ), Rule 9(च), Rule 9(छ) and Rule 9(12) of the JMMC Rules 2004 for the purpose of consideration of the lis.
"9(1) (क)-रै यती भूमि के 03.00 हे० क्षेत्र एवं उससे कि क्षेत्र पर पत्थर, िोरि एवं मिट्टी लघु खमिज के खिि पट्टा उपायुक्त द्वारा स्वीकृत मकया जाएगा।
परन्तु मक सभी सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं झारखण्ड लघु खमिज सििुदाि (संशोधि) मियिावली, 2019 के मियि-6(ख) के परन्तु िें उल्लेखखत क्षेत्र एवं खमिज को छोड़कर सभी रै यती क्षेत्र पर बालू छोड़कर अन्य सभी लघु खमिज के खिि पट्टा की स्वीकृमत झारखण्ड लघु खमिज िीलािी मियिावली, 2017 िें मिरूमपत प्रावधािों के अन्तगगत इलैक्टामिक िीलािी के िाध्यि से मिदे शक, खाि के द्वारा मकया जाएगा। परन्तु राज्य सरकार आवश्यकतािुसार िीलािी हेतु उपायुक्त को भी प्रामधकृत कर सकती है.
9(ङ) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे 0 क्षेत्र से अमधक के रै यती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे आवेदि पत्र मजसिें इस अमधसूचिा मिगगत होिे की मतमि से पूवग झारखण्ड लघु खमिज सििुदाि मियिावली, 2004 के मियि 11 अंतगगत Letter of Intent (आशय का पत्र) मिगगत हो चुका है, उसे इस अमधसूचिा के मिगगत होिे की मतमि से 180 मदिों के अंदर पयागवरण स्वीकृमत एवं खिि योजि अमिवायग रूप से सिमपगत करिा होगा, अन्यिा उिका आवेदि स्वतः अस्वीकृत हो जाएगा। 9(च) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे क्षेत्र से अमधक के रै यती क्षेत्र पर प्राप्त वैसे खिि पट्टे , जो िवीकरण अन्तगगत िे एवं पयागवरणीय स्वीकृमत खिि योजिा प्राप्त िहीं रहिे के कारण कालमतरोमहत हो गये हो, उिके पट्टे की अवमध पट्टा स्वीकृमत/िवीकरण की मतमि से 31 िाचग, 2022 तक के मलए अवमध मवस्ताररत िािी जाएगी, बशते मक अमधसूचिा की मतमि के पूवग खिि पट्टा के अस्वीकृमत /रद्द/व्ययगत होिे का आदे श िहीं पाररत मकया गया है, परन्तु वैसे खिि पट्टे पर कोई खिि तब तक िहीं मकया 12 2025:JHHC:25429-DB जा सकेगा, जबतक मक खिि हेतु आवश्यक पयागवरणीय स्वीकृमत/वि एवं पयागवरण मवभाग की स्वीकृमत खिि योजिा स्वीकृमत प्राप्त िहीं हो जाता है। आवेदक को सभी वांमछत अिापत्ती 180 मदिों के अन्दर सिमपगत करिा होगा ।
9(छ) सरकारी क्षेत्र एवं 05.00 हे0 क्षेत्र से अमधक के रै यती क्षेत्र पर स्वीकृत/िवीकृत खिि पट्टे की अवमध यमद उिकी स्वीकृमत/िवीकरण की अवमध 3[31 िाचग, 2022 के बाद की मतमि हो, तो उिकी अवमध उिकी स्वीकृमत/िवीकरण की अवमध तक मवमधिान्य रहेगी। 9(12) मियि-9 (1) (घ), 9(1)(ङ), 9(1)(च), 9 (1) (छ) तिा 9 (10) पूवग से स्वीकृत/आवमदत लघु खमिज के 5.00 हेक्टेयर क्षेत्र से कि क्षेत्र पर भी लागू होंगें।"
26. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9 (क) under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction.
27. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9(च) that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022.
28. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(छ) as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease but there cannot be any extension, 13 2025:JHHC:25429-DB thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction.
29. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9(ङ), of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, wherein, it has been stipulated that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected.
30. Further, there is a provision of Rule 9(ङ) which was added by way of amendment dated 28.09.2020 and as per the said provision, in case where due to delay in granting Environmental Clearance beyond 180 days, which is not attributable to a lessee, and the lease agreement was not approved, in those cases the Revisional Authority was given power to decide the matter on merits, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid proviso the question requires consideration herein that;
"Whether the laches committed on the behalf of the authority concerned in non-issuance of the Environmental Certificate or there is fault on the side of petitioner, as he has not complied all the procedures as mandated under Rule, 2004."
31. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9(1)(ङ), will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares. 14
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
32. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and settled proposition of law this Court is now adverting to the merit of the case.
33. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended that since LOI has been issued by the authority concerned as such the mining lease must be executed in the favour of the petitioner.
34. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the definition of Letter of Intent as provided in Rule 2 (29) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which reads as under: --
35. From the aforesaid definition, it is evident that a letter of intent is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into a contract.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 405 at paragraph 7 thereof has held that Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. If the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Intent were not fulfilled by Respondent 1, and if the conduct of Respondent 1 was otherwise not such as would 15 2025:JHHC:25429-DB generate confidence, the appellant was entitled to withdraw the Letter of Intent, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"7. ... The Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. If the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Intent were not fulfilled by Respondent 1, and if the conduct of Respondent 1 was otherwise not such as would generate confidence, the appellant was entitled to withdraw the Letter of Intent. There was no binding legal relationship between the appellant and Respondent 1 at this stage and the appellant was entitled to look at the totality of circumstances in deciding whether to enter into a binding contract with Respondent 1 or not."
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd.' (2006) 1 SCC 751 has observed that a letter of intent merely indicates a party's intention to enter into contract with other party in future. A letter of intent is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into a contract.
38. The view taken in Dresser Rand's case (supra) was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishi Khan Logistics Private Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust", (2015) 13 SCC 233.
39. The nature of the right created under LoI issued and the consequences of non-fulfillment of the conditions contained therein for undue long time is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Bhushan Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal", (2017) 2 SCC 125 wherein it has been held which reads as under:
16
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
"40. It is no doubt true that a letter of intent may be construed as a letter of acceptance if such intention is evident from its terms. It is not uncommon in contracts involving detailed procedure, in order to save time, to issue a letter of intent communicating the acceptance of the offer and asking the contractor to start the work with a stipulation that the detailed contract would be drawn up later. If such a letter is issued to the contractor, though it may be termed as a letter of intent, it may amount to acceptance of the offer resulting in a concluded contract between the parties. But the question whether the letter of intent is merely an expression of an intention to place an order in future or whether it is a final acceptance of the offer thereby leading to a contract, is a matter that has to be decided with reference to the terms of the letter.
When the LoI is itself hedged with the condition that the final allotment would be made later after obtaining CRZ and other clearances, it may depict an intention to enter into contract at a later stage. Thus, we find that on the facts of this case it appears that a letter with intention to enter into a contract which could take place after all other formalities are completed. However, when the completion of these formalities had taken undue long time and the prices of land, in the interregnum, shot up sharply, the Respondent had a right to cancel the process which had not resulted in a concluded contract."
40. Admittedly herein, the LOI has been issued but due to want of Environmental Clearance Certificate, the same has been recalled by the concerned authority, and further as per the settled position of law the issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) itself would not give a right to the petitioner of entering into a lease agreement for mining of minor minerals on the site in question without following all conditions as stipulated in the JMMC Rule 2004 and particularly Rule 9(ङ) of the Rule, 2004.
17
2025:JHHC:25429-DB
41. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that vide order dated 13.09.2018 and 11.12.2018 passed in OA No. 520/2016(ΕA- 55/2018) by the National Green Tribunal, the role of DEIAAs constituted in districts for granting environmental clearance became defunct and in all cases of minor minerals, environmental clearance was to be granted by SEIAA only.
42. It has further been stated in the said counter affidavit that in view of the fact that DEIAAs became defunct, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide letter no. 02, dated 18.03.2019 referred matter to SEIAA and provided list of 11 pending projects of minor minerals, in which, Environment Clearance (EC) could not be granted by DEIAA, Pakur, wherein, the name of petitioner's project, i.e., M/s Mahakal Stone Mines through Sri Somraj Bhagat is mentioned at serial no.
11.
43. It has come on record that that due to involvement of Government land in the petitioner's project & also non-payment of salami etc. EC could not be granted by DEIAA, Pakur and in this regard, guidelines were sought from the Directorate of Mines, Jharkhand and thereafter, the proposal of pending projects of minor minerals at DEIAA level was requested to be forwarded to SEIAA along with online application forms but till now no application with requisite documents of project has been submitted by petitioner through PARIVESH Portal which is mandatory. Therefore, the project of the petitioner could not be processed and taken up for appraisal as also for grant of Environmental Clearance in 18 2025:JHHC:25429-DB accordance with provisions of law.
44. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the matters were referred to SEIAA, vide letter no. 02, dated 18.03.2019 by Deputy Commissioner, Pakur but in remark column, some legal issues were pointed out. Secondly, no application with requisite documents were submitted to SEIAA either by Deputy Commissioner, Pakur or petitioner so it could not be taken up for appraisal and grant of Environmental Clearance, as per the provisions of law.
45. Further, from perusal of Rule 9(ङ), of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, it is evident that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected. Here in the case, the authority concerned due to non-furnishing of the Environmental Clearnce certificate has rejected the application for mining lease of the petitioner, which cannot be said to be erroneous decision.
46. The issue of pending consideration of the environmental clearance certificate on the side of respondent/authority has been raised herein but as per the pleading made in the affidavit as filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4, it is evident that the applicant had applied for Environmental Clearance on 06.06.2017 before the District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Pakur (DEIAA). But the same was rejected by the DEIAA on 01.09.2017 19 2025:JHHC:25429-DB on the ground that due to inclusion of the government land in the said project and further not following of procedure of payment of salami and other fees.
47. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that petitioner has not complied in accordance with the provision of JMMC Rule 2004 and further, he has not meted out with the requirement for issuance of the said EC, as such the contention of petitioner regarding the pending consideration of his application is not fit to be accepted.
48. In the case of State of Tamilnadu v. Hind Stone", (1981) 2 SCC 205, wherein, the applications preferred seeking renewal of the mining lease were kept pending for a long time and later rejected on the strength of the Rule 8C inserted in Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, imposing restriction on grant of the lease for quarry black granite to the private persons, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the contention of the lease holders regarding their vested right for renewal of the lease has observed that no one has a vested right to grant or renewal of a lease and no one can claim a vested right to have an application for grant of renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application, despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being 20 2025:JHHC:25429-DB quoted as under:
"13. Another submission of the learned counsel in connection with the consideration of applications for renewal was that applications made sixty days or more before the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 (December 2, 1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of leases made long before the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8-C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8-C came into force. While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant of renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist."
49. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that undoubtedly, the LoI issued was only an expression of the State to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioners on fulfillment 21 2025:JHHC:25429-DB of the conditions specified, which includes the condition of obtaining EC. But the petitioners had not obtained the EC prior to commencement of the Rules of 2017 or even thereafter, thus, no concluded contract had come into existence between the parties and further, since, the petitioner has not complied with the condition as per the JMMC Rule, this Court is of the considered view that the application for grant of mining lease has rightly been refused.
50. So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of M/s Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines (supra) is concerned, it is evident from the fact of the said case that the application of the petitioner for mining lease has been rejected due to non- submission of the EC. However, in some cases, matter was remitted by revisional authority/ Mines Commissioner before the original authority to take decision afresh, therefore, this court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact of the said case and further taking into consideration that the Mines Commissioner has acted in a very highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner, has directed the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
51. But, the fact of instant case is entirely different from the fact of the said case, as herein, the petitioner had not obtained the EC prior to commencement of the Rules of 2017 or even thereafter 22 2025:JHHC:25429-DB and thus, no concluded contract had come into existence between the parties, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case.
52. Further, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Grands Mining (A Partnership Firm) wherein, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand granted Environmental Clearance (in short, EC) for "Golpur Stone Mines Project" on 5th June 2018 to the petitioner-Firm. But, the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 17th September, 2019, declined the application for mining lease in view of the amended Rule 9(1)(e) of the JMMC Rules. Accordingly, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition in following term:
"13. In "Beg Raj Singh", the Hon'ble Supreme Court contemplated two situations whereunder relief may be declined to the aggrieved party. First, there may be a situation where on account of subsequent or intervening events the aggrieved party may be denied relief in equity. Secondly, the relief to which the aggrieved party was entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or incapable of being granted. In a situation which is presented in this batch of writ petitions, the petitioner-Firm may justifiably be declined the relief. However, the State Government's action in granting approvals to mining leases for minor mineral executed even recently cannot be overlooked. For a similar reason, as to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to execute mining lease beyond 3 Hectares, we may indicate that the State 23 2025:JHHC:25429-DB Government seems to have approved the lease deeds executed by the Deputy Commissioners in other districts. We are definitely not criticizing the incumbent Deputy Commissioner, Pakur and have formed an opinion to entertain these writ petitions only for this reason that the Departmental Secretary did not put up his stand and the State Government seems to have approved mining leases exceeding 3 Hectares executed by the Deputy Commissioners in the recent past. This is also bearing in our mind that for whatsoever reason the State Government did not put up a serious challenge in the previous proceedings and almost conceded to the stand taken in the writ petition/contempt petition. Now, in 4th round of litigation, this Court should not re-open the whole issue and ignore the previous orders passed between the parties.
14. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed."
53. In the instant case fact is different as herein the EC has not been issued due to want of some legal necessitated requirement, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is also not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case.
54. It is settled position of law that the applicability of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case, as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow :-
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, 24 2025:JHHC:25429-DB and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
55. It needs to refer herein that the writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for interfering with the decision taken by the Mines Commissioner, as available in the order dated 23.08.2024 appended as Annexure-4.
56. We are aware with the settled position of law of issuance of Writ of Certiorari, which can only be issued if there is any error apparent on record or there is gross miscarriage of justice, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein, at paragraph-7 it has been held as under:
"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals:
these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice.25
2025:JHHC:25429-DB There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised."
57. Similarly, in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph-21 as hereunder: -
"21. With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be 26 2025:JHHC:25429-DB issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari."
58. In the case of Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868, their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as hereunder:
"12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed 27 2025:JHHC:25429-DB out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra).
13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice."
59. This Court, applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to issue Writ of Certiorari and basing upon the reason assigned hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the quasi-judicial authorities, cannot be said to suffer from an error, hence, the same is not fit to be interfered with.
60. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed.
61. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R. 28