Jharkhand High Court
Tata Steel Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4613 of 2025
Tata Steel Limited, a company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1882 (and an existing Company under
the Company Act 2013) having its Registered Office at
24, Homi Modi Street Fort, P.O. & P.S. Homi Modi
Street, District Mumbai 400 001 (Maharashtra) bearing
Corporate Identification Number as L27100MH1907
PLC000260, and having one if its colliery at West
Bokaro Colliery, P.O. Ghatotand, P.S. Mandu, District
Ramgarh 825314; represented through its Company
Secretary & Chief Legal Officer, Mr. Kanchinadham
Parvatheesam, aged about 50 years, son of Shri KSR
Murthy, resident of Flat No. 502, Anand Smruti, 266,
Deodhar Road, PO & PS - Matunga East, Mumbai 400
019 (Maharashtra). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary,
Department of Mines & Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
2. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines &
Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its
office at Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi.
3. The District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. Ramgarh,
P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. ...
Respondents
----------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Rishav A. Chowdhary, Adv Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Adv Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate 1 2025:JHHC:28065-DB For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG II
-----
Order No.06/Dated 11th September, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):
(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-38) passed by the Revisional Authority, Ministry of Coal in Revision Application No. 50 of 2024, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner has been dismissed.
(II).For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring and holding that the transportation of middlings /coal by-products to the Power Generation Plants being Unit#4 (Tata Power) and Unit#5 (Industrial Energy) for generation of electricity for captive use of the Petitioner does not attract liability of additional amount under Section 8 (5) of the MMDR Act.
(III).For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly upon the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh (Respondent No.3) to approve the applications and issue the Transit Permits in favour of 2 2025:JHHC:28065-DB the Petitioner for transportation of middlings / coal by-
products to the Power Generation Plants being Unit#4 (Tata Power) and Unit#5 (Industrial Energy) for generation of electricity for captive use of the Petitioner; (IV).For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, reads as under:
3. The genesis of the litigation arises, when the petitioner applied vide Application No. A22402400 on the JIMMS Portal [Jharkhand Integrated Mines and Mineral Management System Portal] of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand for issuance of "Transport Challan" for „stock transfer of middling generated from its Coal Washery for generation of electricity for captive consumption‟.
4. Upon this application, an objection was raised by the respondents-State on 18.02.2024 to the effect that "Request has been objected by DMO. With Remark (please clarify as to how the consumption of mineral in the plant of the consignee company qualifies for the captive consumption keeping in the view the definition of clause - use for the captive purposes - in the MMDR Act) Please check Draft section with Ref No.-209966." 3
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
5. The petitioner, pursuant thereto replied to the said objection vide letter dated 05.03.2024 addressed to the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh stating therein that Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL] are Captive Power Generation Plants of the Petitioner and operates exclusively on the middling supplied by the Petitioner and further that 100% power generated by Unit 4 and Unit 5 is transmitted back to the Petitioner. The coal (middling) used by Unit 4 and Unit 5 is effectively used by and for the Petitioner through the generating stations / CPPs by converting into electricity for own use of the Petitioner.
6. Thereafter, several communications were exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 giving clarification to the query/doubt raised and the petitioner stated to have represented before the Director of Mines (Respondent No.2) also explaining the transaction for dispatch of minerals under captive category.
7. However, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, the Respondent No. 3, being not satisfied with the response of the petitioner, issued letter being Letter No. 248/Mining dated 15.03.2024 stating that "use for 4 2025:JHHC:28065-DB captive purposes" has been defined in the MMDR Act as the "use of entire quantity of mineral extracted from the mining lease in a manufacturing unit owned by the lessee"
and, thus, sought explanation as to how the dispatch of mineral coal from the Lease (M/s. TSL, Ghatotand) for use / consumption in a unit (of M/s. TPCL) not owned by the lessee falls under the "Captive Category". The Respondent No.3 accordingly directed the Petitioner to comply with Schedule-VI of the MMDR Act for payment of Additional Amount treating the 'stock transfer' as 'sale'.
8. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner vide Letter No. WBD/GM/462/166/24 dated 21.03.2024, clarified that the transaction is a tolling arrangement whereby the entire requirement of raw materials / middling (coal) of Unit#4 and Unit#5 power plants are supplied by the Petitioner from its own Coal Washeries for generation of electricity and the 100% electricity generated by Unit#4 and Unit#5 using the coal so supplied, is transmitted back to the Petitioner for captive consumption at its Jamshedpur Plant. The Petitioner also clarified that the expressions "use for captive purposes" and "use of entire quantity of mineral extracted from the mining lease in a manufacturing unit owned by the lessee" as mentioned in the query of the Respondent No.3, are extracts of the 5 2025:JHHC:28065-DB explanation clause to Section 12-A of the MMDR Act 1957, which deals in respect of transfer of mineral concessions, albeit not applicable to Part-A minerals i.e. coal. The Petitioner further clarified that the Unit#4 and Unit#5 runs only on coal sourced by the Petitioner, which consumes the total electricity generated therefrom, and thus, the transaction can be termed as consumption of mineral for captive purpose.
9. The Petitioner further clarified that when middling are sold to other Units, the transaction being sale, transit permits are applied under 'non-captive category' as the electricity produced therefrom are not consumed by the Petitioner and even if consumed, then that is against payment of electricity bills and without payment of GST. The Petitioner had also raised queries relating to the applicability of Additional Amount on sale of by-products and requested to charge royalty on coal as per Rule 64B of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that despite clarifications, the Transit Permits were not being approved by the Respondent No.3, as such the Petitioner vide Letter No. WBD/GM/462/189/24 dated 03.04.2024 raised concerns that the inventory of middling coal has been accumulated beyond the manageable limits creating 6 2025:JHHC:28065-DB difficulty in running the mining operations in the West Bokaro Colliery and requested the Respondent No. 3 to approve the applications for transit permits. The Petitioner was compelled to give undertaking to make payment of 'Additional Amount on such dispatch, in case it is finally held that the above dispatches are for non- captive purposes.
11. The Respondent No.3-the DMO, Ramgarh, again vide Letter No. 454/M dated 06.04.2024 re-agitated the issue contending that the Unit#4 and Unit#5 is not wholly owned plant of the Petitioner, and, thus, do not qualify as 'own industry' as defined in Rule 24-B of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960(MC Rules) . Respondent No.3 further contended that the MMDR Act and the MC Rules refer to and differentiate only between the manner of utilization of mineral and not between the utilization of output of the mineral-based plant or industry.
12. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner vide Letter No. WBD/GM/462/ 228/2024 dated 15.05.2024 responded to the issues been raised by the Respondent No.3 explaining that the transactions and tolling arrangements as to why and how the consumption of coal in Unit#4 and Unit#5 respectively, qualifies for captive consumption under the MMDR Act. The Petitioner 7 2025:JHHC:28065-DB reconfirmed that no part of middlings is sold or transferred to any entity at any stage of the transaction and the title/ownership of both raw material and final product remains with the Petitioner.
13. It is further case of the petitioner that, on being satisfied, the Respondent No.3 granted approval to the Application No. A52402690 dated 29.05.2024 for transit permit for a limit of 2,00,000 MT of middling to Unit#4 and Unit#5 at Tata Power, Jojobera. However, Respondent No. 3 again questioned the transaction of 'stock transfer' of coal to Unit#4 and Unit#5 located at Tata Power, Jojobera, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, directing to pay additional amount in terms of Sec. 8 (5) of the MMDR Act.
14. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Respondent No. 2 (Director of Mines) explaining the issues involved and submitted representation vide Letter No. CRE/RAN/44/110 dated 19.06.2024 requesting his immediate intervention to facilitate uninterrupted dispatch of middling to Unit#4 and Unit#5 under 'captive' category.
15. On 17.07.2024, the Petitioner applied on JIIMS Portal for transit permit of 80,000 MT of coal to Unit#4 and/or Unit#5 under 'captive' category. However, on 8 2025:JHHC:28065-DB 23.07.2024 the Respondent No. 3 again raised the same old objection albeit wording it differently seeking details with the following remarks: "Request has been objected by DMO. With Remark (please submit the copy of approval / clause of lease deed where it is mentioned that the lessee can enter into any agreement with any other company for use of mineral in the plant of the other company). Please check Draft section with Ref No-224627."
16. The Petitioner vide Letter No. WBD/GM/462/ 338/2024 dated 29.07.2024, responded to the objections raised by the Respondent No.3 again explaining the tolling arrangement been made for conversion of middling / coal into electricity for its own consumption and there is no transfer of title or ownership of the mineral. The Petitioner also clarified that there is no restriction in the lease or under the law in force that the mineral cannot be converted into electricity for self-consumption.
17. The Petitioner also clarified that there is nothing in the lease that mandates the Petitioner to establish any plant by making capital investment and that the Petitioner cannot enter into any arrangement for carrying out its mining and allied activities and use of coal by converting into electricity. Considering that any disruption in supply of coal to Unit#4 and Unit#5 at 9 2025:JHHC:28065-DB Jojobera would have a cascading effect on the operations of its steel plant at Jamshedpur, vide letter No. CRE/RAN/44/122 dated 31.07.2024, the Petitioner sought immediate intervention of the Respondent No. 2 (Director of Mines) to ensure the continued dispatch of coal.
18. Petitioner again made a representation vide Letter No. WBD/GM/462/344/2024 dated 01.08.2024 to the Respondent No. 3 requesting to approve Transit Permit application for 1,00,000 MT of middling for stock transfer /supply to Unit#4, which was approved.
19. The Petitioner again vide Letter No. CRE/RAN/44/128 dated 14.08.2024 again approached the Respondent No. 2 (Director, Mines & Geology) requesting to issue a necessary advice / clarification, however, no clarification has been given.
20. Thereafter, vide Application No. A82401917 dated 30.08.2024 the Petitioner further applied for stock transfer / supply of 2,00,000 MT of middling / coal to Unit#4 and Unit#5 respectively. However, as per the information available on Online JIMMS Portal the Respondent No.3 has raised an objection with the following remarks: "Request has been objected to by DMO. With Remark (Pl update the status regarding submission of 10 2025:JHHC:28065-DB the documents warranted regarding captive consumption) Please check Draft section with Ref No-227753"
21. Being aggrieved with the actions of the respondents, the petitioner approached to the revisional authority under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 by preferring revision being Revision Application No. 50 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2025.
22. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India making the prayer as quoted and referred in the preceding paragraph.
23. It is, thus, evident that the matter arises out of the objections as has been raised by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh on the request submitted for the transfer of coal mineral. In response, M/s Tata Steel Limited, the petitioner herein, submitted replies providing clarifications to the issues raised by the DMO.
24. Subsequently, the DMO issued demand notices dated 15.03.2024 and 06.04.2024, calling upon M/s Tata Steel Limited to explain, "how the dispatch of mineral coal from the leasehold area of M/s TSL at Ghatotand to a unit of M/s Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL), which is not 11 2025:JHHC:28065-DB owned by the lessee, qualifies as a 'Captive Use' under the applicable legal framework". Further, M/s Tata Steel Limited was asked to justify as to why its request should be allowed without payment of the additional amount prescribed by the provisions of the MMDR Act, as also sought clarification as to whether prior approval of the State Government had been obtained before entering into the tolling arrangement between (i) the Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL) and Unit-4 Mine of the Applicant and, (ii) the Industrial Energy Limited (IEL) and Unit-5 Mine of the Petitioner. Further, the validity and sanctity of the said tolling arrangement has also been questioned by the respondents-State.
25. Consequently, the DMO suspended the issuance of transport challans for coal movement on various occasions to the concerned units, on the ground that the proposed coal transfer constitutes an illegal transfer and insist that such movement of mineral can only be permitted upon compliance with the due process of law and in accordance with the statutory framework governing such transactions.
26. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-Tata Steel Limited preferred revision being Revision Application No. 50 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 12 2025:JHHC:28065-DB 23.07.2025. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order from paragraph 18 to 20 is quoted as under:
18. The Revisional Authority, after hearing the submissions made by the parties and reviewing the case records, considered the following key points:
(i) Illegality of Coal Transportation in contravention of statutory procedures under MMDR Act and state Rules: The transportation of coal by M/s Tata Steel Limited (TSL), without strict adherence to the applicable rules and procedures prescribed under the MMDR Act, the MCR, 1960 and the JMR, 2017 constitutes a serious procedural lapse.
These statutory provisions are designed not merely as regulatory formalities but as preventive legislation to ensure accountability, transparency, and lawful movement of minerals.
In particular, the JM Rules, 2017, framed under Section 23C of the MMDR Act, serve the critical function of tracking the transportation and storage of minerals and curbing illegal mining activities. Any deviation from these mandated procedures undermines the integrity of the statutory scheme and raises legitimate concerns regarding the legality and traceability of the mineral in transit. Therefore, compliance with these provisions is not optional but a statutory obligation.
(ii) Tolling Arrangement in contravention of MMDR Act and Allied Rules: The tolling arrangement entered into by M/s Tata Steel Limited (TSL) with M/s Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL) and Industrial Energy Limited (IEL), without complying with the mandatory statutory framework prescribed under the MMDR Act, the MCR, 1960, and the JMR, 2017, amounts to a direct violation of the legal regime 13 2025:JHHC:28065-DB governing mineral development and regulation. Permitting such activities, despite the absence of statutory approvals, will set a dangerous precedent that may result in the complete breakdown of regulatory control over mineral extraction and dispatch, ultimately encouraging arbitrariness, legal impunity, and unaccounted exploitation of natural resources.
(iii) Demand for Bank Guarantee: The requirement of furnishing a Bank Guarantee by the Respondents lacks any legal basis under the MMDR Act or the MCR, 1960 especially in light of the protection already granted by the interim orders by this Authority.
(iv) Maintainability of the Revision Application and Section 23C, MMDR Act: JMR, 2017 framed under Section 23C, provide that the Central Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by the State Government or any of its authorized officers under the Rules made under Sub- section (1) and (2) of Section 23C of the MMDR Act. Thus, this Revisional Authority does not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon or revise the order passed by the DMO under Rule 10 of the JMR, 2017 in view of the express bar under Section 23-C (3) of the MMDR Act and therefore, the Revision Application is not maintainable.
19. Upon careful examination of the facts, submissions, and applicable legal provisions under the MMDR Act, the MCR, 1960 and the JMR, 2017 this Authority finds that the transportation of coal by M/s Tata Steel Limited (TSL) under the tolling arrangement with M/s Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL) and Industrial Energy Limited (IEL) was carried out in violation of the statutory framework governing mineral development, regulation, and transportation. The 14 2025:JHHC:28065-DB transportation was undertaken without obtaining the requisite prior approvals from the competent authority and without adherence to the mandatory procedures; therefore, it was an illegal transportation of minerals, as stipulated for the lawful movement of minerals.
Such unauthorized activity is in direct contravention of the preventive legal regime envisaged under Section 23C of the MMDR Act and the JMR, 2017, which are designed to ensure traceability, accountability, and prevention of illegal mining, transport and storage of mineral.
The tolling arrangement, executed in disregard of statutory safeguards and M/s Tata Steel Limited is hereby held liable for breach of statutory obligations and violation of the applicable rules.
The Respondents can take appropriate action in accordance with law under relevant provisions of law. The interim protection, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. It is, however, clarified that this order pertains solely to the legality and procedural validity of the impugned order/notice(s).
20. Accordingly, the Revisional Authority passed the above order in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 30 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 55(4) MCR, 1960."
27. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the DMO, Ramgarh and the revisional authority, the petitioner has approached this Court. Submission on behalf of petitioner:
28. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken the following grounds.
15
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
29. The petitioner applied on the JIMMS Portal for issuance of "Transport Challan" for „stock transfer of middling generated from its Coal Washery for generation of electricity for captive consumption of Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL], which was rejected raising objection by the DMO.
30. In this regard, submission has been made by the learned Senior Counsel that no „transport challan‟ is required for „stock transfer of middling generated from its Coal Washery for generation of electricity for captive consumption of Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL], as per provision of Section 8(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
31. Further submission has been made that on one occasion, an issue was raised regarding the Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL], to be non- captive but for the said, explanation was furnished by the petitioner.
32. Further submission has been made that after insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 16 2025:JHHC:28065-DB 1957, the petitioner submitted Form-R,specially indicated therein that „no coal has been sold‟.
33. Submission has been made that provision of Section 8(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 stipulates that any lessee may, where coal or lignite, is used for captive purpose, sell such coal or lignite up to fifty per cent of the total coal or lignite produced in a year after meeting the requirement of the end use plant linked with the mine in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government and on payment of such additional amount as specified in the Sixth Schedule.
34. It has been contended that generation of power through the Captive Power Plant is not for the purpose of the selling it out rather the same is for the purpose of its utilization to the extent of 100% to the Tata Steel Limited. Hence, in view of provision 8(5) of the MMDR, Act 1957, no „transport challan‟ is required.
35. It has been contended that both the units i.e., Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL], are owned by the Tata Steel Limited and as such whatever generation is being carried out in the captive power plants, the same is for the purpose of its own use. 17
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
36. Further argument has been advanced by taking aid of provision of Rule 27A of the Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2021 wherein it has been provided that any lessee may, where coal or lignite is used for captive purpose, sell coal or lignite up to such per cent of the total coal or lignite produced in a financial year, as allowed under sub-section (5) of section 8, after meeting the requirement of the end use plant linked with the mine. The explanation (3) thereof provides that sale of any tailings, rejects or middlings shall not be restricted by this rule. The contention therefore has been raised that if there is no sell then there is no requirement to have the transport challan seeking to be issued by DMO for the purpose of transportation of middlings from the lease hold area.
37. The ground has been taken by referring to the provisions of Section 2(8) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein the definition of „captive generation plant‟ has been given stating that "Captive generating plant" means a power plant set up by any person to generate electricity primarily for his own use and includes a power plant set up by any co-operative society or association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such cooperative society or association. 18
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
38. Further, the reference of provision of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 has also been taken wherein the requirements of captive generating plant has been mentioned that - (1) No power plant shall qualify as a "captive generating plant" under section 9 read with clause (8) of section 2 of the Act unless- (a) in case of a power plant- (i) not less than twenty six percent of the ownership is held by the captive user (s), and (ii) not less than fifty one percent of the aggregate electricity generated in such plant, determined on an annual basis, is consumed for the captive use.
39. It has been contended by taking aid of aforesaid provision i.e., Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 that herein the 100% of the power being generated form „captive power plants‟ is being used by the petitioner, Tata Steel Limited which is for own purpose since the Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL] are owned by the Tata Steel Limited.
40. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner showing the agreement that is the „Power Tolling Agreement‟ between the Tata Power Coal Limited and Tata Steel Limited, has submitted that by virtue of the said agreement both the companies are one and as such 19 2025:JHHC:28065-DB under the definition of „captive power plant‟ since the generation of the power which is being made from the captive power plant in question are only for the purpose of own use of the petitioner, Tata Steel Limited.
41. The learned senior counsel has submitted that when permission has been sought for to allow the transportation of middlings which having not been allowed rather the DMO has taken decision by passing a cryptic order having no reason by rejecting it by up- loading in the portal/website.
42. The writ petitioner being aggrieved thereof preferred revision before the Revisional Authority by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 by raising the issues including the issue of order of rejection by the DMO on the portal/website showing no reason of rejection but the revisional authority has also not assigned any cogent reason rather the revision has been held to be not maintainable in view of Section 23C of the MMDR Act, 1957.
43. The learned senior counsel has submitted that due to conduct of the DMO, who is having no jurisdiction to not grant permission, the Tata Steel Limited is suffering a lot due to scarcity of the middlings for the 20 2025:JHHC:28065-DB purpose of generation of power in the captive power plant. Therefore, the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the respondent State:
44. Per contra, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has taken the following grounds.
45. It has been contended that the writ petitioner has not come out with any document in order to substantiate that the TPCL and IEL are owned by the Tata Steel Limited.
46. The reliance which is being placed on the tolling agreement also does not clarify the position of the TPCL and IEL are owned by Tata Steel Limited. It has been submitted that if the terms and conditions of the tolling agreement will be taken into consideration then it would be evident from perusal of only one clause as under
Article 7 i.e., „Billing and Payment‟, wherein it has been provided that „Tata Steel Limited‟ is obliged to make fixed conversion charges payment as also variable conversion charges. The care has been taken in a case of invoice dispute with clause of timely payment and in case of payment is not within the due date the same will bear interest from such due date until paid at the rate of five percent over the reference interest rate per annum. 21
2025:JHHC:28065-DB
47. Learned Advocate General, therefore, has submitted that if the TPCL and IEL are the companies owned by Tata Steel Limited, there is no question of making payment of conversion charges to be paid by Tata Steel Limited in favour of TPCL and IEL and in case of belated payment the interest will carry.
48. It has been contended that MMDR Act, 1957 is self-content Code enacted by the Parliament to look into the development and regulation of the mineral and as such there is no reason to take aid of any of the Electricity Rules 2005, upon which reliance has been placed of Rule 3, which contains the twin condition with respect to ownership which is not less than 26% and the consumption not less than 51% of the aggregate electricity generated but the question of ownership is to be taken into consideration from the definition of „own industry' as provided under Rule 24B of MC Rule 1960 wherein the definition of „own industry‟ has been provided, which means an industry of which the lessee is the owner or in which he holds not less than 50% of the controlling interest. But herein in the instant case although no partnership agreement or even the ownership agreement with respect to TPCL and IEL have been brought on record but as has been submitted that 22 2025:JHHC:28065-DB 26% share of the TPCL and IEL are of TSL. But the definition of 26% ownership as per the provision of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 will not be applicable in view of the fact that the meaning of owned industry has already been provided under 24B of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The argument therefore has been advanced that if the explanation of "own industry"
would not be there in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 then the matter could have been understood and aid of the other provision would have been taken but that is not the fact herein in view of the explanation of the Own Industry as under Rule 24B of the MCR, 1960.
49. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the TSL is the lessee of the State Government, although, the issue of lease is in dispute in a case pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court being SLP(C) No. 5669 of 2023 but even accepting the decision as on the date the State has to go with the terms and conditions of the lease deed entered with the Tata Steel Limited and there is no scope of misconstrue the said lease by self-assuming for the purpose of consumption of the coal in any nature for the purpose of its use.
50. Learned Advocate General has though admitted that DMO as also the revisional authority has not passed 23 2025:JHHC:28065-DB the reasoned order but submission has been made that the „determination of factual aspect‟ before going into the „legal issues‟ is required to be ascertained, and as such submission has been made that before „determination of factual aspect‟, it would not be proper to adjudicate the issue by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of adjudication of the factual aspect by appreciation of various documents.
51. It has been submitted that it is also the case of the writ petitioner that DMO has passed a cryptic order by up-loading in the JIMMS Portal rejecting the prayer made for issuance of transport challan permitting the petitioner to carry out the middllings to the Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL]. Response of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:
52. Upon this, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact that the adjudication of the lis is to be done only after „determination of factual aspect‟ as also the various documents, quantity of the middlings etc., which is sought to be supplied to the captive power plant. 24
2025:JHHC:28065-DB Therefore, submission has been made that if the learned Advocate General is consenting for consideration of the issue by the higher authority of the State Government then the matter may be relegated before such authority.
53. Learned Advocate General has conceded that the matter may be relegated before the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department to decide the issue. Analysis
54. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the State and appreciated the arguments advanced by them as also gone through the materials available on record.
55. This Court is of the view that whatever contention has been raised on behalf of petitioner, the same requires consideration by going through the lease deed entered in between the petitioner-Tata Steel Limited and the respondents-State of Jharkhand. But the said lease deed is not available on record.
56. This Court has posed a question to the learned senior counsel to the petitioner that why the copy of lease deed entered in between the parties has not been appended with the record, the response has been given that tolling agreement has been appended. But so far tolling agreement is concerned that is in between the 25 2025:JHHC:28065-DB Tata Steel Limited and Tata Power Corporation Limited [TPCL]. This Court is of the view that in absence of the lease deed the issue cannot be adjudicated by this Court.
57. This Court is further of the view that why the lease deed has not been appended, the reason best known to the petitioner.
58. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in absence of lease deed no adjudication of the lis, as has been agitated in the writ petition, is to be adjudicated in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
59. Further, various facts has been raised on behalf of parties being disputed by one or the other party and as such this Court is of the view and as has been consented by the learned counsel for the parties the matter requires consideration by going through the lease deed entered in between the Tata Steel Limited and the State.
60. We are conscious of the fact that on the concession so given by the parties, no jurisdiction is to be conferred to any of the authority in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but since factual aspect has been raised having been disputed by the parties and as such to ascertain the fact, if the parties are agreeing to have a finding by the Officer 26 2025:JHHC:28065-DB in the capacity of the Secretary of the Department, such direction can be passed by this Court upon the Secretary to ascertain the aforesaid facts.
61. Accordingly, the matter is relegated before the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand.
62. This Court in view of the aforesaid concession since the parties have agreed to relegate the matter before the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand solely on the ground that no reason has been given either by the DMO or the Revisional Authority while passing the order impugned as such are of the view that the orders passed by the DMO, Ramgarh reflected in the JIMMS Portal as also the Revisional Authority requires interference.
63. Accordingly, the orders passed by the DMO, Ramgarh as reflected in JIMMS Portal as also the Revisional Authority order dated 23.07.2025 passed in R.A. No.50 of 2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.
64. The parties are at liberty to bring all the relevant documents in support of their claim before the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand.
65. The Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand will call upon the petitioner-Tata Steel 27 2025:JHHC:28065-DB Limited and the concerned District Mining Officer on a specific date preferable within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
66. In turn, the parties will appear before the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand on the date fixed and may submit all necessary document on the date fixed or time, as granted by the Secretary, Mines and Geology and preferable within a period of four weeks from the date of their appearance.
67. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to non-transportation the middlings, being not permitted by the DMO, Ramgarh the captive power plants of the petitioner i.e., Unit 4 of TATA Power Company Limited [TPCL] at Jojobera and; Unit 5 of Industrial Energy Limited [IEL] are at the verge of closure due to want of middlings required for power generation.
68. It has been contended that the power which is being generated in captive power plant is the source of power supplied to the Tata Steel Limited and if the captive power plants of the petitioner would be closed, the entire unit of Tata Steel Limited at Jamshedpur will be jeopardize and not only that the entire unit will be come to standstill. Hence, he has sought for ad interim 28 2025:JHHC:28065-DB arrangement for carrying out the middlings to the captive power plants so that the unit of the petitioner may run smoothly.
69. The learned Advocate General has consented that ad-interim arrangement may be made but subject to payment of 50 % of the total assessed additional amount, as stipulated under 8(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 and for rest 50% the deposit in the form of Bank Guarantee be given by the petitioner till finalization of the lis. It has also been submitted that payment so made will be subject to adjustment depending upon the outcome of the lis.
70. It has also been submitted that necessary insertion by way of rectification in the JIMMS Portal will be carried out for the aforesaid purpose.
71. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, as assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has accepted the said concession of learned Advocate General and has agreed for making payment of 50% of the total assessed additional amount, as stipulated under 8(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 and for rest 50% the deposit in the form of Bank Guarantee.
72. This Court, purely on concession as recorded in the preceding paragraphs, and considering the fact that the matter has been directed to be relegated before the 29 2025:JHHC:28065-DB Secretary, Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, is passing an order that the concerned District Mining Officer will issue transport challan for transportation of middlings by keeping the proper record, subject to charging 50% of the total amount. So far as the rest of the 50% amount is concerned, the Bank Guarantee, as has been submitted in past, shall be deposited before the concerned authority.
73. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stand disposed of.
74. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 11th September, 2025 Alankar/- A.F.R 30