Jharkhand High Court
Pritam Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 977 of 2020
----
Pritam Jaiswal, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Dinanath Jaiswal, R/o Village Pot Lakrapahari, P.O. & P.S. Jama, District-Dumka.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Pargana, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhumka.
3.District Mining Officer, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. S.C. I
--------
Order No. 05 : Dated 6th August, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,51,50,440/- including fine of Rs. 3,98,000/- and for quashing certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2.
Factual Aspect:
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the averments made in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was granted lease in mauza Fataipur for the area of 4 acre and the said lease was valid up-to 07.09.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned mine is a broken mine as prior to grant of lease in favour of the petitioner the lease was granted to one Sudhansu Kumar Singh in plot no. 253 and 256/P on 2.50 acre on 08.09.2001 for 10 years.
Subsequently, lease was granted in favour of one M/s Ankur Stain -1- 2025:JHHC:23168-DB Works in plot no. 254 and 241 in the total area of 4 acre on 06.07.2001 for 10 years.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that that by virtue of a deed of transfer the lease deed for the aforesaid area of 4 acre has been transferred in favour of the petitioner on 10.02.2010. Further case of the petitioner is that the lease of the petitioner is valid up-to 07.09.2021.
4. But, all of a sudden, the petitioner received a demand notice dated 26.05.18 issued by respondent no. 3-District Mining Officer, Pakur, by which for the first time petitioner came to know that a proceeding of demarcation of the lease area and measurement was done by the respondent no. 3- District Mining Officer, Pakur on 07.04.2018, 08.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 to 12.04.2018.
5. Against the impugned demand petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 31/08/18 on two grounds that the petitioner did not prefer the appeal within the limitation period, and further, the petitioner did not deposit 50% of the amount of demand as per Rule 65(3) of the Jharkhand minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 [in short 'JMMC Rules, 2004']
6. Being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this court in WPC no. 4986 of 2018 challenging the impugned demand, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2018 holding the writ application not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy to the revision application before the mines commissioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed revision case no.26/2019 and the same is still pending. But during pendency of -2- 2025:JHHC:23168-DB the revision application, the respondent no.3 filed the certificate proceeding being certificate case no. 2/18-19 for realization of certificate amount of Rs. 1,51,50,440/-
8. The respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 7 of the PDR Act and asked the petitioner to file objection, either to deny or admit the liability. Accordingly, the petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of PDR Act on 5.10.2018 denying his liability and also for the reason of challenging the demand notice in Revision case no. 26/2019. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has issued distress warrant on 22.01.2020 without deciding the objection filed U/Sec. 9 of the PDR Act.
9. Being aggrieved with the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 and direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,51,50,440/- including fine of Rs. 3,98,000/- and for quashing certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2, petitioner approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submission of the petitioner:
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that in absence of any order having been passed by the Certificate Officer on consideration of objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the demand notice as also the distress warrant has been issued, as impugned in this writ petition, therefore, it requires interference by this Court.-3-
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
11. It has been contended that against the issuance of demand notice, the revision has been preferred but the revisional authority has declined to interfere with the revision due to want of deposit of 50% of the requisite amount to be deposited as a condition to file revision, as provided under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004.
12. It has been contended that Respondent no.2 neither decided objection nor determine the claim of certificate holder and without hearing the petitioner, has issued distress warrant but it is a settled principle of law, that certificate cannot be executed without deciding objection and hearing the judgment debtor as prescribed under Sections 9 and 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The petitioner states that the certificate amount consist the amount of the demand notice, since the demand notice itself is under challenge and pending before the Mines Commissioner the entire certificate proceeding is premature, arbitrary and illegal.
13. It has further been stated that several writ application wherein the demand notice arises out of unilateral measurement has been challenged before this Court and a Bench of this Court has been pleased to set aside the demand notice vide order dated 30.08.2018 and disposed of the writ application by quashing the imposition of penalty and remitted the matter back to the District Mining Officer for fresh determination.
14. Since the amount under the certificate is under challenge and pending before the Mines Commissioner, the initiation of the proceeding is arbitrary and illegal. Moreover issuance of the -4- 2025:JHHC:23168-DB distress warrant, without deciding objection U/Sec. 9, is arbitrary and not maintainable.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before demarcation and measurement of lease hold area no notice was given to the petitioner about the date of measurement and demarcation. The process of the measurement as well as demarcation was done without giving the petitioner any prior information of proposed measurement/demarcation as such neither the petitioner nor his representation could be presented at the time of so called measurement.
16. The petitioner states that from the impugned demand notice it appears that for violation of Rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rules the petitioner is liable to pay difference of royalty to sum of Rs 1,47,52,440/- and also a fine of Rs 3,98,000/-
17. Submission has been made that Rule 42(1) clearly provides that such demand/penalty can be imposed only by the collector and it is also prescribed before the final demand is raised reasonable opportunity to file show cause reply was required to be given to lessee. The petitioner states that from proviso 42(1) of the said Rule it is evident that before passing a final order under the said Rule "Samaharta" was required to give notice. "Samaharta" is defined under Rule 2(4) of the JMMC Rules. According to the definition of 'Samaharta', the Deputy Commissioner of the district or Sub-Divisional Officer appointed by the State Government or Anchal Officer appointed by the State Government to act as Samaharta can exercise power under Rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rules.
-5-
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
18. The petitioner states that the respondent admittedly is a District Mining Officer and is not authorised to exercise power under Rule 42(1) of the Rules nor respondent no. 3 was authorised by the State Government to act as 'Samahartha' to exercise power under Rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rule.
19. The petitioner states that before the impugned demand notice was issued neither the petitioner was asked to show cause or to produce any document to defend his case for the purpose of determination/assessment of the royalty. The petitioner states that as per Rule 41(4) of the JMMC Rules it is clearly evident that before any proceeding for calculation of royalty proper opportunity to defend the case is required to be given.
20. The petitioner further submits that before the impugned demand notice was issued the respondent no. 3 did not ask the petitioner to produce any document, nor the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing before the demand was raised.
21. The petitioner states that the so called measurement has been taken in an unscientific way behind the back of the petitioner as such on the basis of such measurement the assessment of the royalty cannot be said to be proper and valid. The petitioner states that the respondent no. 3 in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner has raised the impugned demand which is wholly without jurisdiction.
22. The petitioner states that the appellate authority also rejected the appeal without considering the provision of law and the fact that the measurement was done unscientific behind the back of the petitioner. The respondent no.3 vide letter dated -6- 2025:JHHC:23168-DB 08.06.2019 directed the petitioner not to perform any mining operation as petitioner failed to submit any order of any court. The petitioner states since respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to raise any demand and also no authority to impose any fine under Rule 42 (1) of the JMNC Rules.
23. It has been submitted that several writ applications wherein the demand notice arises out of unilateral measurement has been challenged before this court Bench of this Court has been pleased to set aside the demand notice vide order dated 30.8.2018 disposed of the writ application by quashing of the imposition of penalty and directed the District Mining Officer for fresh determination in accordance with law and with direction to the respondent-authority to treat the impugned letters as show cause notice.
24. Since the amount under the certificate is challenged and pending before the Mine Commissioner, submission has been made that the initiation of the proceeding is arbitrary and illegal. Moreover issuance of the distress warrant without deciding objection U/Sec. 9 is arbitrary and not maintainable. Submission of the respondents:
25. Serious objection has been made by Mrs. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to Sr. S.C. II by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
26. It has been contended that whatever has been argued on behalf of petitioner is totally misconceived argument not only that the material fact has been suppressed.
-7-
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
27. It has been contended by referring to paragraph 43 of the writ petition wherein the writ petitioner has given declaration that no writ petition has been preferred for the self-same relief earlier but a writ petition was preferred by the writ petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2018.
28. It has been contended that the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory/efficacious remedy of revision before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand and the liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to prefer revision within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of order with limitation petition, with an observation upon the revisional authority to consider the issue of limitation.
29. It has been contended that it is the writ petitioner in pursuance to the said liberty has approached before the revisional authority. The learned State counsel in view of the aforesaid has submitted that once the liberty has been availed, as granted by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.4986 of 2018, then it is bounden duty of the writ petitioner to approach the revisional authority strictly as per the provision made therein which requires to deposit 50% of the amount as per the demand, which is still pending but instead of doing so, he has again approached this Court for the self-same relief as sought for in W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018 and additionally prayer has been made for quashing the certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warranted dated 22.01.2020.
Analysis:
-8-
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
30. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced on their behalf.
31. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted lease in mauza Fataipur for certain area. The petitioner received a demand notice dated 26.05.2018 issued by respondent no. 3-District Mining Officer, Pakur, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2018 on the ground that the petitioner did not prefer the appeal within the limitation period, and further, the petitioner did not deposit 50% of the amount of demand as per Rule 65(3) of the JMMC Rules.
32. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2018. For ready reference, order dated 19.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018 is quoted as under:
"The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit total sum of Rs.1,51,50,440/- (Rs.1,47,52,440/- for excess excavation of mineral and Rs.3,98,000/- by way of fine @ Rs.2,000/- per month for 199 months). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
At the very outset, learned A.C. to A.G. submits that the petitioner has statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring revision before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Keeping in view that the petitioner has statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring revision before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. The same -9- 2025:JHHC:23168-DB is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to prefer revision before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. If the revision application is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today along with a limitation petition, the delay in filing the revision shall be liberally considered by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi."
33. However, with the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner preferred revision being Revision Case No. 26 of 2019, which is stated to be still pending. However, during pendency of the said revision application the respondent-District Mining Officer filed a certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 2/18-19 for realization of certificate amount of Rs. 1,51,50,440/-.
34. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and asked the petitioner to file objection either to deny or admit liability. The petitioner has filed an objection U/Sec. 9 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 on 05.10.2018 denying his liability and also for the reason of challenging the demand notice in Revision case no. 26/2019. The authorities being not satisfied issued distress warrant on 22.01.2020.
35. The petitioner being aggrieved thereof has again approached this Court against the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,51,50,440/- including fine of Rs. 3,98,000/- and for quashing certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2.
36. From the pleadings available on record, it is apparent that there is no stay order in the revision application, and further on a
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:23168-DB pin-pointed question posed by this Court as to whether there is any stay in the revision preferred by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any chit of paper or made any averment that any stay has been granted in the revision preferred by the petitioner in view of liberty granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018.
37. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the proceeding which has been initiated under the certificate proceeding cannot be said to be faulted with and further in terms thereof, if the distress warrant has been issued that cannot be faulted with.
38. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has taken the ground that even the prayer which was made in earlier round of litigation i.e., in W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018 has again been agitated in this case besides other prayer and the petitioner instead of pursuing the revision has again approached this Court for the self-same relief.
39. In view thereof, this Court has gone through order dated 19.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4986 of 2018 and the prayer made in the present writ petition has found that in both the writ petition i.e., in earlier round of litigation and in the present one prayer for quashing the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 has been made but in the instant writ petition besides that prayer has also been made for quashing the certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2.
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:23168-DB
40. However, the fact remains that in view of liberty granted in W.P. (C) No. 4986 of 2018, the petitioner preferred revision application being Revision Case No. 26 of 2019, which is still pending and during pendency of the said revision application the respondent-District Mining Officer filed a certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 2/18-19 for realization of certificate amount, in which distress warrant has been issued, which has been held to be issued in accordance with law.
41. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the case so as to make any interference with the order passed by the authorities concerned.
42. Accordingly, the instant writ petition sans merit is dismissed.
43. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the revision application, if it is still pending, as per liberty granted in W.P. (C) No. 4986 of 2018.
44. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Alankar/ A.F.R.
- 12 -