Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jai Bajrang Walee Stone Works vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4755 of 2021
-----
M/s Jai Bajrang Walee Stone Works, situated at Plot No. 9/P, 10/P, 11/P, 14/P and 17/P, Mouza - Gudwa, Sakrigali, Sahebganj, Jharkhand, 816115, through its Proprietor namely, Prakash Chandra Yadav, son of Anandi Yadav, aged about 60 years, resident of 12A, Rifuji Colony; Р.О.-Sahibganj, P.S.- Jirwabari (OP), Dist.-Sahibganj (Jharkhand) ... ... ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having office at 3rd Floor, Yojna Bhavan, Secretariat Building, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.
3. The District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, having office at District Mining Office, near Collectorate Office, Sahebganj, Stadium Rd, P.O. & P.S.-Sahebganj PART, Sahebganj- 816109, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, having office at Collectorate Office Sahebganj, Stadium Rd, P.O. & P.S.- Sahebganj PART, Sahebganj - 816109, Jharkhand.
... ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
------
Order No.08/Dated16th October, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J Prayer
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs: 1
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari setting aside the order passed by Respondent No.3 by way of letter no.860 dated 28.07.2020 for being arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, whimsical and in direct violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) For a declaration that the acts of the Respondents in restricting the Petitioner to file online applications on its portal for issuance of Transport Challan only in terms of bulk volume of minerals for transporting minerals from its mine is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, whimsical and mala fide and is in direct violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Consequent upon such a declaration to issue an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make necessary modifications in the online portal to enable the Petitioner to file applications for issuance ofTransport Challan in terms of weight (i.e. tonne) of minerals, for transportation of minerals from its mining site.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to process the online applications filed by the Petitioner for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight (i.e. tonne) and accordingly issue such Transport Challan for transportation of minerals.
(v) For a declaration that the act of the Respondents in demanding advance payment of royalty as against the mutually agreed quarterly mode payment is in breach of the contractual obligations under Part V clause 3 of the binding Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, and as such it is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and in direct violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) Consequent upon such declarationto issue an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to honour their contractual obligations as per Part Vclause 3 of the binding Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 and to allow the Petitioner to make payment of royalty on quarterly basis.
Factual Matrix:
2. Petitioner is a Proprietorship Firm engaged in the business of stone mining in Sahehganj, Jharkhand.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per pleading made in the writ petition require to be enumerated, which read as under- 2
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
(i) Petitioner entered into a Lease Agreement with the Deputy Commissioner/Collector and District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, in the name of the Governor of Jharkhand, for the purpose of mining stones in the district of Sahebganj, Jharkhand.
(ii) The said Lease Agreement was renewed for a period of 10 (ten) years from 05.03.2016 to 04.03.2026 vide Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, upon payment of requisite security deposit and other applicable charges.
(iii) Under the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, a total area of 25 acres was allotted to the petitioner for stone mining in Sahebganj district of Jharkhand for a period of 10 years.
4. The relevant provisions of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 are as follows-
(a) Clause 1 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that the lessee shall make payment of „fixed rent‟(as per Clause 2 of Part V) or „royalty‟(as per Clause 3 of Part V), whichever is greater, as determined by the Collector either on a quarterly basis or half-yearly basis.
(b) Clause 2 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that the lessee shall make payment of 'fixed rent' in four equal installments on the first day of each of the months of April, July, October 3 2025:JHHC:32211-DB and January for each of the years at the rate of INR 25,000/- per acre of land, in accordance with the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Rule, Concession 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "JMMCR, 2004), as amended by the state government from time to time. Accordingly, in case of the present Petitioner, the value of 'fixed rent' for 25 acres of land, at the rate of INR 25,000/- per acre, amounts to INR 6,25,000/-.
(c) Clause 3 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that the lessee shall make timely payment of 'royalty' to the state government in four equal installments on aquarterly basis by the 15th (fifteenth) day of the respective months for each of the years at the rate of royalty mentioned in Schedule 2 of the JMMCR, 2004.
(d) Clause 5 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that apart from the payment of 'fixed rent' and 'royalty', a lessee shall make proper and regular payments of all cess, tax and local dues to the appropriate officer for excavation and exploitation of mines in the mining lease area.
(e) Clause 2 of Part VI of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that for the purpose of calculating the aforementioned 'royalty', the lessee has to maintain an account of the stored/stacked minerals which 4 2025:JHHC:32211-DB shall be examined by the officer authorized by the Collector, at the time of dispatching the minerals.
(f) Clause 1 of Part VIII of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, inter alia, provides that such lessees who have complied with the rules and have duly made payments of rent and royalty and arecontinuing to comply with the rules and make payments of rent and royalty, can exercise all their rights without any illegal interference by the Collector or any other person calming any right(s) against the lessee.
5. The petitioner, as per Clause 2 of Part VI of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, has been maintaining an account of all its stored/stacked minerals on the basis of weight i.e. tonne.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred some relevant provisionsof JMMCR, 2004. Rule 29(1)(kh) of JMMCR, 2004 provides that royalty shall be charged on the minerals at the rate mentioned in Schedule 2 therein and Schedule 2 provides for payment of royalty on the basis of volumetric quantity of minerals in terms of „per cubic meter‟ .Learned counsel has further submitted that Rule 29 of JMMCR, 2004 was amended in the year 2007 vide JMMC (Amendment) Rules 2007 wherein Rule 29A was inserted andnewly added Rule 29A i.e. sub-rule (2) of Rule 29A provides, inter alia, that the maintenance of accounts of the royalty payable by a lessee shall 5 2025:JHHC:32211-DB be done at the level of a competent officer and as soon as the due royalty amount becomes either equivalent to or more than the fixed rent, the lessee shall be able to remove or use the mineral from the mining site only after making advance payment of the due royalty amount.
7. Despite the said amendment made in the year 2007 in JMMCR 2004, the Respondent authorities have throughout been accepting payment of 'royalty' on quarterly basis as per Clause 3 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 and issuing Transport/Mining Challan in lieu of payment of royalty on quarterly basis.
8. The Petitioner has throughout been making payments of 'royalty' in terms of 'per cubic meter' as prescribed in the amended JMMCR, 2004 on the basis of insitu volume of the stones.
9. Petitioner has been stacking and dispatching minerals from its mines on the basis of weight (i.e. tonne) of minerals, for the purpose of making payment of 'royalty' on the basis of volume i.e. per cubic meter (insitu volume), the Petitioner had to convert the quantitative value of the minerals from tonne to cubic meter (insitu volume). For the purpose of the said conversion the Petitioner had been using the following conversion formula:
"2.90 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume)‟‟ 6 2025:JHHC:32211-DB
10. Petitioner has consistently been making payment of royalty on the basis of the aforementioned conversion formula and the Respondent authorities have also been accepting the same to issue Transport Challan to the petitioner for removal/dispatch of minerals from its mining site.
11. The Respondent authorities have been conducting examinations and verification of the stones stored/stacked by the Petitioner in accordance with JMMCR, 2004 as amended from time to time and for the purpose of removal/dispatch of minerals from the mining site of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.3 has been issuing Transport Challan to the Petitioner in accordance with the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter "2005 Regulations").
12. Petitioner made payment of 'royalty' in the year 2017, for mining 6,79,407.34 tonnes of stones during the period 05.03.2016 to 30.06.2017 calculated at the rate of INR 105/- per cubic meter of the insitu volume (equivalent to INR 36.20/- per tonne) of stones which amounted to INR 2,45,94,545.71/- in total.
13. However, in the year 2017, the Respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Petitioner being letterno.1358 dated07.7.2017, raising objections against the Petitioner's method of royalty calculation on the basis of 'insitu volume' of stones and demanded from the Petitioner a sum of INR 2,42,54,926/- in 7 2025:JHHC:32211-DB lieu of 'royalty' calculated on the basis of 'bulk volume' of stones and not 'insitu volume'.
14. The Petitioner had made an appeal against the said letter no.1358 dated 07.7.2017 before the Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, wherein the Deputy Director, Mines, vide order dated 02.11.2017 ruled in favour of the Petitioner and set aside the said demand letter no. 1358 dated 07.7.2017 of Respondent No.3 and held that there is a difference between „insitu volume' and „bulk volume' of stones which was based on the observation of the Hon'ble Andhra High Court in the case of Progressive Constructions Co. versus South Central Railway and Ors., [2006 (6) ALD 570] which reads as under:
"if a large piece of stone meaning 1 cum (cubic metre) of volume, when converted into small stones either by breaking or crushing and heaped would measure 1.82 cum (cubic metre)."
The Deputy Director, Mines, vide the same order, further directed Respondent No.3 to apply to the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh, for determination of the value of insitu density of the particular stone material and thereafter assess royalty based on the said insitu density.
15. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Petitioner being letter no.459 dated 17.02.2018 enclosing the Petrological Report of the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh dated 01.02.2018 wherein the insitu density of the stone was 8 2025:JHHC:32211-DB determined to be 2.81. Respondent No.3, in the said letter dated 17.02.2018 further stated that the value of insitu density of the stone is 2.81 and that the royalty calculation shall be done on the basis of the said value of insitu density as per the conversion factor i.e. 2.81 tonne per cubic meter of stone.
16. Subsequently, the Petitioner made payment of royalty based on the said insitu volume of stones as per the following conversion formula:
"2.81 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume)"
17. Under the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005, before removing/dispatching stones from its mining site, the Petitioner and all other lessees were required to make applications under FORM-A to the District Mining Officer for obtaining permission to remove stones from its mining site enclosing two copiesof analysis report under FORM-B. Thereafter, after completing all the formalities under the said Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005, the District Mining Officer issued Transport Challan' under FORM- D. It is pertinent to mention that the said proforma forms- FORM-A, FORM-B and FORM-D contained the option, to enter the quantitative value of the stack of stones in terms of both 'cubic metre' and 'tonnes', which was available to the Petitioner and all other lessees.
18. In the year 2017, the state government enacted the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, 9 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 (hereinafter "2017 Rules") by which, the JharkhandMineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 (2005 Regulations) was repealed and various processes like registration of dealers, making applications for issuance of Transport/Mining Challan, issuance of Transport/Mining Challans, etc. were made online and consequently a lessee was now required to carry out all the said processes online on portal (https://portal.jharkhandminerals.gov.in/) created by the state govt. in view of the online system under the said 2017 Rules. The proforma forms made available to all the lessees on the said online portal for carrying out all the processes were different from the erstwhile physical (offline) proforma forms under the 2005 Regulations.
19. The rate of royalty leviable on the basis of volumetric quantity i.e. 'per cubic meter' of minerals provided in Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 2A and Schedule 3 of the amended JMMCR 2004 was revised/enhanced in the year 2019 vide Gazette Notification dated 16.09.2019/19.09.2019.
20. Despite the difference in the online proforma forms under the 2017 Rules and the erstwhile proforma forms under the 2005 Regulations, the Petitioner and the other lessees were provided with the option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of both 'volume i.e. cubic meter' and 'weight i.e. tonnes' in the online forms while making an online 10 2025:JHHC:32211-DB application for issuance of Transport Challan on the said online portal till the year 2020, and therefore the Petitioner, without facing any difficulty, was able to make payment of royalty on the basis of the said conversion formula i.e."2.81 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume)".
21. However, to the utter surprise of the Petitioner, the proforma forms on the online portal was modified sometime in the year 2020 and the option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of 'weight i.e. tonnes' was removed and only the option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of 'volume i.e. cubic feet' was made available to the Petitioner and other lessees. Therefore, the Petitioner was restricted to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals only in terms of bulk volume of minerals i.e. in units of 'cubic feet'.
22. After the said modification in the online portal, since the quantity of stones in the said application for issuing Transport Challan was being entered in terms of bulk volume, the Respondent authorities were issuing Transport Challan only in terms of bulk volume and subsequently, demanded payment of royalty on the basis of the said bulk volume mentioned in the Transport Challan, which was contrary to the said order of the Deputy Director, Mines dated 02.11.2017.
23. The Petitioner, in view of the said illegal demand, sent a letter to Respondent No.3 being letter no. JBSW/20-21/44 11 2025:JHHC:32211-DB dated 07.07.2020 informing Respondent No.3 that as per the said order of the Deputy Director, Mines dated 02.11.2017 and the test report of the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh, the conversion factor was ascertained to be 2.81 tonne per cubic meter of stone. The said letter dated 07.07.2020 further mentioned about the previous letter of Respondent No.3 being letter no.459 dated 17.02.2018 wherein Respondent No.3 had itself directed the Petitioner to calculate royalty charges on the basis of the said conversion factor i.e. 2.81 tonne per cubic meter of stone.
24. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent another letter no. JBSW/20-21/45 dated 13.07.2020 to Respondent No.3stating that the said demand of royalty payment in advance and prior to issuance of Transport Challan is contrary to Clause 3 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 and therefore requesting Respondent No.3 to issue Transport/Mining Challan without demanding advance payment of royalty. The Petitioner, in the said letter dated 13.07.2020, further expressed the difficulty in conducting business in such circumstances and stated that in case of non-issuance of Transport/Mining Challan the business of the Petitioner would be stopped and its fundamental right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India will be infringed.
25. In response to the said two letters of the Petitioner dated 07.07.2020 and 13.07.2020, Respondent No.3 sent a letter 12 2025:JHHC:32211-DB being letter no. 860 dated 28.07.2020, enclosing a copy of the JMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2007 and stated that as per the said amendment in JMMCR 2004 in the year 2007 by which Rule 29A was inserted, a lessee would be permitted to displace/utilize minerals after making advance payment of the royalty amount and after all government dues in respect of the said mining permit has been cleared. With respect to the rate of royalty, Respondent No.3 stated that the rate of royalty has been leviable as per Schedule 2 under Rule 29(1)(kh) of the amended JMMCR 2004 and based on the volumetric quantity mentioned in the Transport Challan.
26. The Petitioner, due to such stands being taken by Respondent No.3, is being forced to make advance payment of royalty which is contrary to the mutually agreed terms in Clause 3 of Part V of the said LeaseAgreement dated 12.03.2016. The Petitioner is also being forced to make payment of royalty in excess of what is payable as per the order of the Deputy Director, Mines, Dumka dated 02.11.2017, without any security by way of indemnification from the Respondent Authorities in case of any default due to no fault of the Petitioner. As a result, the Petitioner is facing tremendous difficulty and risk in conducting business due to non-issuance of Transport/Mining Challan in terms of weight (i.e. tonne).
27. Being aggrieved by the said letter of Respondent No.3 being letter no. 860 dated 28.07.2020 and further being grossly 13 2025:JHHC:32211-DB affected/ dissatisfied by the actions and non-actions of the Respondent Authorities, the Petitioner is constrained to prefer the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submission on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner
28. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that-
(i) The Impugned Order dated 28.07.2020(Annexure-
10), requiring advance payment of royalty before issuance of Transport Challan, is illegal and contrary to the Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, which allows quarterly royalty payments.
(ii) The demand for royalty based on bulk volume (Cft) instead of weight (tonne) or insitu volume is arbitrary, baseless, and contrary to the order of the Deputy Director of Mines dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3) and the accepted conversion formula of 2.81 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume).
(iii) The 2020 modification of the online portal, removing the weight option and forcing lessees to use bulk volume, has no statutory backing and violates Rule 10(v)(a) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, which recognizes weighbridge-based transport.
14
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
(iv) The said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 is exactly same as the previous Lease Agreements executed by the Respondent authorities in favour of the Petitioner and the Respondent authorities have themselves failed to modify the said Lease Agreements in line with the changes made in the JMMCR 2004 vide JMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2007.
(v) Respondent authorities were continuing to accept payment of royalty on quarterly basis as per Clause 3 of Part V of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 and thereafter issued Transport/Mining Challan to the Petitioner based on the said quarterly mode of payment until modification of the online proforma forms available on the online portal.The Respondent authorities are now estopped from refusing to accept payment of royalty on a quarterly basis and make demands based on an entirely different mode of payment let alone advance mode of payment. The Respondent authorities cannot suddenly start demanding advance payment of royalty, even after the said amendment of the JMMCR 2004 in the year 2007, as the same would result in breach of the mutually agreed terms under the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016.
(vi) Themodification on the online portal restricting the petitioner to enter the volumetric quantity of stones only in terms of bulk volume is arbitrary and not in accordance 15 2025:JHHC:32211-DB with any existing rule or law and is a mere device of the respondent authorities to demand and extract more royalty from the petitioner, in excess of what is leviable as per law.
(vii). Petitioner has the facility of weigh bridge duly approved by the concerned department of the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner is able to measure and stack stones in terms of weight (i.e. tonne) and therefore it is convenient for the Petitioner to enter the same value in terms of weight (i.e. tonne) in the said online application for issuance of Transport Challan and thereafter use the conversion formula to make payment of royalty to the Respondent authorities.
(vii). Respondent authorities cannot force the Petitioner to enter the quantitative value of stones on the basis of volume, let alone bulk volume of stones, especially in light of Rule 10(v)(a) of the said Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which provides that"all transport of minerals/ores will normally pass through check-gate/weigh bridge of the Department and/or approved by the Department and the quantitymoved will be verified through designated check- gate/weigh bridge. Where there is no facility of weighment, the verification shall be done through volumetric measurement."
16
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
(viii). The amended JMMCR, 2004 at Schedule 2, simply provides for assessing royalty on the basis of volumetric quantity i.e. per cubic meter of minerals and nowhere provides that royalty is to be charged on bulk volume of minerals and not insitu volume. It is therefore submitted, that the acts of the Respondents in charging royalty on bulk volume of stones, are in complete disregard of the established principles of law and the mutually prevailing industry practice which has been created and implemented by the Respondent authorities themselves.
(ix) It is an established and undisputed fact that when a large piece of rock is converted into small stones by breaking or crushing, the volume of the broken stones i.e. bulk volume is much more than insitu volume of the large piece of rock. The said significant difference in bulk volume and insitu volume is due to the void spaces between the pieces of the small broken stones and it is completely unreasonableand unjustified for any lessee to make payment for the said void spaces created due to transformation from insitu to bulk volume of stones/minerals. However, it is pertinent to mention that the weight of the large piece of rock is same as the weight of the small broken stones and therefore it is easier to calculate insitu volume of the said stack as there is no difference in the value of insitu volume whether the weight of either the large piece of rock is considered or the weight 17 2025:JHHC:32211-DB of the small broken stones of the same mineral is considered for the purpose of calculation of insitu volume.
(x). The Impugned Order being letter no.860 dated 28.07.2020 was passed in a completely unreasonable manner, without any application of mind, and in total disregard to the mutually agreed terms of the said Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 and the established principles of law relating to the difference between bulk and insitu volume of minerals and as such the said Impugned Order needs to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
(xi) Respondent Authorities in refusing to issue Transport Challan before making advance payment of royalty is causing grave difficulty to the Petitioner in conducting business and as such it is in direct violation of the Petitioner's fundamentalrights enshrined in Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of Indiaand are contrary tosettled industry practice.The Petitioner, having a duly approved weighbridge, should be allowed to apply for Transport Challans based on weight, and the Respondents should be estopped from unilaterally altering the agreed mode of royalty payment.
29. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the portioner submitted that, the impugned order letter no.860 dated 28.07.2020 (Annexure-10) passed by the Respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal and be set aside. Further, direction be 18 2025:JHHC:32211-DB issued to the respondent to make necessary modifications in the online portal to enable the petitioner to file applications for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight (i.e., Tonne) and to honour the contractual obligations as per Part V clause 3 of the binding Lease Agreement to allow the petitioner to make payment of royalty on quarterly basis. Submission on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents
30. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for 25 acres in Mouza Gudwa, Sakrigali, Sahebganj from 05.03.2016 to 04.03.2026 but failed to deposit royalty leading to a demand of Rs. 2,42,54,926/- crore vide letter dated 07.07.2017.
31. Against the said demand, petitioner had moved before Deputy Director Mines in Appeal Case No. 06/17-18 and Appellate authority had remanded the matter and directed the lessee to make payment of royalty in terms of report submitted by the state Geological Laboratory.
32. The petitioner even after the report not deposited the royalty in terms of the report and therefore, after adjusting the payment already made a demand to the tune of Rs. 2,83,27,475/- as royalty and Rs, 67,32,812/- as DMFT have been raised and communicated the petitioner through 250/M dated 25.02.2019.
19
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
33. The petitioner had requested for issuance of challan without advance payment of royalty but vide impugned memo no. 860/M dated 28.07.2020respondent has replied that as per Rule 29 A of the JMMC Rules,2004, advance royalty has to be paid and as per schedule -2 of the of JMMCR, 2004 royalty has to be paid on volumetric quantity.
34. The petitioner is bound to follow the amendments which have been provided in the lease deed itself and rules having the statutory force are not under challenge. Hence, contention of the petitioner regarding the contravention of lease deed is not acceptable.
35. Learned Counsel for the State lastly submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy in the rule itself but without exhausting the same directlyapproached this Hon‟ble Court, rendering the present writ petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Analysis:
36. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit.
37. Before addressing the issues, it would be pertinent to deal with the issue raised by the State that writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner has alternative remedy and without availing the same, the petitioner has moved before this Court. 20
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
38. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition is well maintainable, since, the impugned order which has been passed compelling the petitioner to make advance payment of royalty of minerals, is adversely affecting the petitioner‟s businessand is violation of principle of fundamental right. Hence, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks., Mumbai & Ors.,(1998) 8 SCC 1, the writ petition is well maintainable.
39. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that the law is well settled that if the statutory remedy said to be alternative one, is available, then the writ petition is least to be entertained.
40. However, there is no restriction said to be imposed in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to in which case, the writ petition is to be entertained and in which case, it is not to be entertained if the alternative remedy is available.
41. The aforesaid issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra), followed in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vrs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 95.
21
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
42. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra),is being referred as under: -
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field."
43. The aforesaid view has again been reiterated in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra) as under paragraph nos.4 to 6 & 8 of the judgment, for ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under: -
"4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of 22 2025:JHHC:32211-DB power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal. It is axiomatic that the High Courts (bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether to entertain a writ petition or not. One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability" goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of "entertainability" is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a High Court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest. Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a High Court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, 23 2025:JHHC:32211-DB however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper.
5. A little after the dawn of the Constitution, a Constitution Bench of this Court in its decision reported in [1958] SCR 595 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh) had the occasion to observe as follows:
"10. In the next place it must be borne in mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy. It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieved party has another and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. . . ."
6. At the end of the last century, this court in paragraph 15 of its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a writ court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under:
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;
(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice;
(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
(iv) where the vires of an Act is challenged.
8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of U. P. v. Indian 24 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.)** and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India v. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the High Court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of ; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the High Court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available."
44. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the writ petition can be entertained subject to availability of the following conditions-
(i) For the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights
(ii) If the order passed by the authority is suffer from jurisdictional error; or
(iii) If there is violation of principle of natural justice; or
(iv) the vires of an Act is challenged.
45. Further it is settled position of law that in case of availability of alternative forum under the statute, there is no embargo for the High Court not to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather, the High 25 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Court can exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the High Court is having the self- imposed restriction and depending upon the situation or availability of the conditions, the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 285, wherein, as under paragraphs 19, 20 and 22, has held as under:-
"19. This argument of the second respondent is misconceived. The existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court's writ jurisdiction and therefore does not create an absolute legal bar on the exercise of the writ jurisdictionby a High Court. The decision whether or not to entertain an action under its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
20. This understanding has been laid down in several decisions of this Court. In U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264] this Court held : (SCC p. 270, para 11) "11. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction or discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of 26 2025:JHHC:32211-DB the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy."
22. The mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors.
46. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid legal premise, is to examine the factual aspect as to whether, either of the conditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments are available so as to maintain the present writ petition.
47. Admittedly herein, there is no issue of jurisdiction orviolation of principle of natural justice . However, the ground of violation of fundamental right has been agitated. Petitioner has alleged that respondents are compelling to make advance payment of royalty of minerals which is adversely affecting the petitioner business, which is in violation of principle of fundamental right.
48. In the backdrop of the settled position of law as well as contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the view that, the writ petition is well maintainable.
49. Now coming to the merit of the case. This Court on appreciation of the argument advanced on behalf of parties, the following issues arises for consideration-
I. Whether royalty shall be calculated on the basis of „insitu volume' or royalty shall be calculated on „bulk volume‟ on 27 2025:JHHC:32211-DB the basis of rate provided in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004.
II. Whether the order dated 17.02.2018(Annexure -4 series) passed by the District Mining Officer, Sahebganj which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3) passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, in Appeal case No. 06/17-18, even though has not been recalled/reviewed by the Revisional Authority in exercise of suo motu power as provided under Rule 62 of the JMMC, Rules, 2004 and if the said orders per se contrary to the statutory provision as stipulated in Rule 29 1 (kh) of Rule 2004, is it available for the litigant concerned to take aid of the said order.
III. Whether writ of Mandamus can be issued upon the respondents to make necessary modification in the online portal to enable the petitioner to file applications for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight i.e. tonne, for transportation of minerals from its mining site. IV. Whether royalty shall be paid on the basis of advance payment or royalty shall be paid quarterly as per Part V clause 3 of the Lease Agreement between the parties. Re: Issue No. I and II
50. It needs to refer herein that Section 15 of the MMRD Act gives the same power to the State Government to make rules in 28 2025:JHHC:32211-DB respect of minor minerals, and the State Government by way of notification in the official gazette, may make Rules for, regulating the grant of quarry leases and mining leases or other minerals concession in respect to minor minerals and "for purposes connected therewith.
51. The power to regulate conferred by Section 15 (1) is not only with respect to the grant of licences and leases mentioned in those sub-sections but is also with respect to "purposes connected therewith". This phrase gives government a wider power to frame Rules with regard to all tasks which are incidental to the minor minerals. A plain reading of Section 15 shows that the State Government is bestowed with the power to make rules, and such rules would provide power, to fix, collect rent, fees and other charges. Further such rules may be made for any other matter, which is to be or may be prescribed. Section 15 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, provides general power to States to frame rules for regulating the grant of query leases and mining leases and other mineral concession in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. However, Section 15(1-A), which was inserted in statute book vide Act No.37 of 1986 w.e.f. 10.02.1987, sets out that the State Government may make rules, without prejudice to generality of powers conferred under Section 15(1).
52. Section 15 thereof deals with power to the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. The 29 2025:JHHC:32211-DB State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers conferred under section 15 of the Minor Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [in short „ MMDR Act, 1957‟] framed a rule, namely, "Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004‟ [in short JMMC Rules, 2004"] in respect of matters pertaining to minor mineral including levy of royalty. For ready reference, the Rule 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957 is quoted as under:
15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.― (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for, regulating the grant of [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. [(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―
(a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;
(b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications may be sent;
(c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received within the same day;
(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed;
(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions; (f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations;
(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable;
30
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations;
(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease;
(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred;
(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads power transmission lines, tramways, railways, serial rope ways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or other mineral concession;
(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act;
(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted;
(n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefore, and the powers of the revisional authority; and
(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.] (2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a state Government regulating the grant of 1 [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the commencement of these Act shall continue in force. (3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay [royalty or dead rent, whichever is more] in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State 31 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Government in respect of minor minerals: Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of [royalty or dead rent] in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of 4 [three] years.] [(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act for the following, namely:―
(a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under sub-section (2) of section 9B;
(b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; and
(c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under section 15A.]
53. It is evident that the Section 15 of the MMDR Act, confers power upon the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals, as such the State framed rule, namely, „Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004‟ in respect of matters pertaining to minor mineral including levy of royalty. It is further evident that Rule 15(3) of the MMDR Act contains enabling provisions which enables the State Government to levy royalty or dead-rent in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed at the rate prescribed for the time being in the Rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals. It is also stipulated under Section 15(3) of the Act 1957 that the holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) of Section 15 shall pay [royalty or dead rent, whichever is more] in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sublessee at the rate 32 2025:JHHC:32211-DB prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals.
54. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the State Government has power to make rules to enhance the rate of royalty under Section 15(1) read with 15(3) in respect of a minor mineral. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that State, by virtue of the constitutional mandate as well as statutory provision of Act 1957 which has been discussed herein above, has ample power to make the rule for determining the rate of royalty.
55. Now coming to submission as well as factual aspects of the case wherein learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that calculation of royalty be made on the basis of „insitu volume'. There is a difference between „insitu volume' and „bulk volume' of stones which was based on the observation of the Hon'ble Andhra High Court in the case of Progressive Constructions Co. versus South Central Railway and Ors., [2006 (6) ALD 570] and the appellate authority Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle also in order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3)in Appeal case No. 06/17-18, relying on the aforesaid judgment had ordered for calculation of royalty on insitu density.
56. On the other hand, Respondents are raising objections against the petitioner method of royalty calculation which is based on the basis of 'insitu volume' of stones and respondents are demanding royalty charge on the basis of 'bulk volume' of 33 2025:JHHC:32211-DB stones as price mentioned in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004, and noton „insitu volume'.
57. On going to the impugned order, which is Memo No. 860/M dated 28.07.2020(Annexure-10), we find that there is reference of letter no. JBSW/20-21/44 dated 07.07.2020(Annexure-8) and by the said letter petitioner had requested the Respondent No.3 District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, to calculate the royalty charges as per conversion factor 2.81tonne per cubic meter of stone and this conversion factor was as per letter no.459/M, dated 17.02.2018(Annexure- 4 series), passed by the District Mining Officer, Sahebganj.
58. Here, it is pertinent to note that aforesaid conversion factor of 2.81 tonne per cubic meter of stone was calculatedby the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh, on the basis of order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3), passed by the appellate authority Deputy Director of Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle in Appeal case No. 06/17-18.
59. In response to the aforesaid letter no. JBSW/20-21/44 dated 07.07.2020(Annexure-8) of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, by the impugned order vide Memo No. 860/M dated 28.07.2020(Annexure-10), had replied to the petitioner that rate of royalty of minor minerals has been leviable as specified in schedule-2 under the provision or Rule 29(b) and based on volumetric quantity mentioned in the Transport challan form D. 34 2025:JHHC:32211-DB
60. So,for deciding the Issue No.1and II, it will be pertinent to refer Rule 29 and Schedule-2 of JMMCR, 2004.
61. The Rule 29 of the JMMC Rules 2004 which has been enacted by the State of Jharkhand by the dint of Section 15(3) of the Act 1957 as well as constitutional mandate wherein it has been provided, inter alia, that Royalty would be payable as per Schedule 2 of the said Rules.
62. Rule 29 of JMMCR, 2004, is titled „Rent and Royalty‟ and is concerned to payment of „rent‟ and „Royalty‟. Rule 29 of JMMCR, 2004, is quoted herein below -
29. लगान एवं स्वामिस्व- 1) जब खनन पट्टा स्वीकृत अथवा नवीकृत ककया जाता है -
(क) अनुसूची। एवं। एवं (क) में उल्ले खखत दर से कनयत लगान कलया जाएगा। (ख) अनुसूची-2 िें उल्ले खखत दर से स्वामित्व मलया जाएगा। (ग) लघु खकन ज के पट्टे धाररय ं द्वारा कजला खकनज (न्यास) कनयमावली (DMFT) के प्रावधान ं के तहत दे यराकिका भु गतानकरना ह गा। (घ) पट्टे धारी द्वारा उपय ग में लाये गये दखल ककए गये भू तल क्षे त्र का भू तल लगान उस दर से दे य ह गा ज उस क्षे त्र के भू-राजस्व दर से अकधकन ह । (2)इन कनयम ं के लागू ह ने की कतकथ से पू वव में स्वीकृत अथवा नवीकृत खननप ट्ट कं जन काअखित्व उक्तकत कथक है ., पर भी उपकनयम (1) का प्रावधान लागू ह गा।
(3) यकद खनन पट्टाधारी द्वारा एक से अकधक खकनज ं के द हन की अनु मकत एक ही क्षेत्र में दी गयी है त प्रत्येक खकनज के मामले में अलग-अलग स्वाकमस्व अथवा कनयत लगान दे ना ह गा। परन्तु यह कक पट्टाधारी क प्रत्ये क खकनज की खथथकत में ज भी अकधक राकि ह गी, कनयत लगान अथवा स्वाकमस्व का भु गतान करना ह गा। (4) यकद पट्टे की ित ं में कुछ भी अन्तकववष्ट है तव भीपट्टाधारी क अनु सूची। तथा 2 के तहत समय- समय पर कनधाव ररत दर पर ककसी भी लघु खकनज क कनकालने तथा हटाने के कलए लगान/स्वाकमस्व का भु गतान करना ह गा। (5) राज्य सरकार, सरकारी राजपत्र में अकधसूचना के द्वारा प्रथमत था कद्वतीय अनुसूची क संि कधत कर सकती है कजससे कक वह दर बढाया या घटाया जा सके कजस पर सरकारी राज पत्र में अकधसू चना के प्रकािन की तारीख के प्रभाव से ककसी भी लघु खकनज के कलए लगान/स्वाकमस्व का भु गतान ककया जाये गा। 35
2025:JHHC:32211-DB (emphasis supplied)
63. So, Rule 29(1)(kh) ofJMMCR,2004,provides „royalty‟ will be taken as per rate prescribed in Schedule-2.
64. Now, coming to Schedule 2 of the JMMCR,2004.Here, it is pertinent to note that apart from other Schedules,Schedule 2 of the JMMCR,2004was amended by Gazette Notification dated 19.09.2019(Annexure-7) and Schedule 2 was replacedby the aforesaid amendment,which is quoted as under-
झारखण्ड गजट (असाधारण) गुरुवार, 19 मसतम्बर, 2019 अनुसूची-2 लघु खमनज के स्वामिस्व की दर (दे खे मनयि-29 (1) (ख)) (सभीदररूपयेिें) क्र.स. खमनज का नाि मदनांक-29.04.2015 पुनरीमित से झारखण्ड राज्य िें स्वामित्व की दर लागू दर (प्रमत धन िीटर) (प्रमत घन िीटर) 1 2 3 4 1 Boulder,Gravel, 105.00 132.00 Shingle 2 Boulder, Gravel, 105.00 250.00 Shingle which is used for making chips 3 Ordinary sand used 40.00 50.00 forconstruction purpose 4 Brick earth 30.00 38.00 (equivalent to 400 standard bricks) 5 Ordinary Clay-Clay 30.00 38.00 used for manufacturing of Raniganj tiles and commercial use 6 Lime shale, Kankar 70.00 88.00 and limestone used in kilns for manufacturing of lime used as building 36 2025:JHHC:32211-DB material and lime shell used for manufacture of bottoms.
7 Morrum 30.00 38.00 8 Chalcedoney pebbles 65.00 82.00 used for ball mill purposes only.
9 Quartize and 75.00 94.00
sandstone when used
for purposes of
building or for
making road metal
and household
utensils
10 Reh Matti 25.00 32.00
11 Saltpetre 25.00 32.00
12 Slate and Shale when 65.00 82.00
used for building
material
13 Fullers earth 100.00 125.00
14 Stone used for 35.00 44.00
making household
utensils including
grinding stone
15 Stone sets and stone 65.00 82.00
bricks (per hundred)
16 Stone dust 12% of sale price 12% of sale
price
17 Granite (In case of
use for decorating
stone)
a.Block more than 60 875.00 1094.00
cm.
b. Block less than 60 440.00 550.00
cm
18 Marble 515.00 644.00
(a) Block less than 60
cm
19 All other minor 12% of sale price on 12% of sale
minerals not here in ad-volorem basis price on ad-
before specified. volorem basis
& for Ordinary
37
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
Earth @ 20.00
65. Hence, Schedule 2 of the JMMCR,2004,which was amended by Gazette Notification dated 19.09.2019, provided royalty leviable on the basis of bulk volume „per cubic meter‟.
66. As per Rule 29(1) (kh), royalty is chargeable as per rate prescribed in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
67. Earlier petitioner used to calculate payment of royalty on „insitu volume‟, but now petitioner is aggrieved by the method of calculation of royalty, as provided by the respondent, which is based on the bulk volume „per cubic meter‟, as provided in Schedule 2 of the JMMCR,2004.
68. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to see the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Shambhu Chauhan Versus Ram Kirpal Alias Chirkut & Ors. [2024 INSC 882] wherein Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot exercise such jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence or finding of fact unless the concerned authority below acted beyond its jurisdiction or such findings suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or such finding beset with surmises or conjectures, for ready reference paragraph-17 and 18 of the said judgment is being quoted herein below: 38
2025:JHHC:32211-DB "17. It is the well-settled position of law by this Court that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot exercise such jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence or finding of fact unless the concerned authority below acted beyond its jurisdiction or such findings suffer from error apparent on the face of the record or such finding beset with surmises or conjectures.
18. This Court made the said observation in the various decisions such as Mikunda Bore v. Bangshidhar Buragohain & Ors. ; State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw &Anr. ;
Dharamraj and Ors v. Chhitan& Ors. ; and Krishnan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors"
69. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent raised objection, on petitioner method of calculation of royalty on the basis „insitu volume‟ and respondent demanded royalty on the basis of „bulk volume‟, vide letter no. 1358 dated 07.07.2017, then, petitioner appealed before the appellate authorityDeputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, DumkaCircle, in Appeal Case No. 06/17-18.Deputy Director, Mines, hadset aside the letter no. 1358 dated 07.07.2017 by its order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3)and had directed the Respondent No. 3 to get determine the insitu density of particular stone by State Geological Laboratory, Hazaaribagh, and to calculate the royalty on insitu density.
70. Thereafter, on determination of insitu density of the stone, Respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Petitioner being letter no.459/M dated 17.02.2018(Annexure-4 series), enclosing the Petrological Report of the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh dated 01.02.2018 wherein the insitu density of the stone was determined to be 2.81. Respondent No.3, in the said 39 2025:JHHC:32211-DB letterno.459/M dated 17.02.2018 further informed that the value of insitu density of the stone is 2.81 and directed the petitioner to calculate the royaltyon stone on the basis of the conversion factor i.e. 2.81insitu density. Subsequently, the petitioner made payment of royalty based on the said insitu volume of stones as per the conversion formula:"2.81 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume)"
71. Hence, the aforesaid conversion formula "2.81 tonne (weight) = 1 cubic meter (insitu volume)", upon which petitioner is relying for calculation of royalty, itself came into existence as per order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3) passed by the appellate authority Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, in Appeal Case No. 06/17-18.
72. But, ongoing through the order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3), passedby the appellate authority Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, in Appeal Case No. 06/17-18, we find from it that in the appeal,appellant (petitioner herein) had stated that for dispatching,appellant is using unit of tonne which is unit of mass or weight, and for converting it to volume, the District Mining Office, was using bulk density, but, the value of insitu density shall be taken and in office calculation 1.41= 1cum, which is the value of bulk density but, in insitu density, it shall be 2.90 = 1 cum.Appellate authority in its order had also noted that District Mining Office had stated in paragraph-7 of its report thatdemand was raised on the basis of Rule 29 of JMMC 40 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Rules,2004.Lastly, appellate authority had ordered for determination of the value of insitu density of the particular stone materialby State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh, and thereafter to calculate royalty based on the said insitu density.
73. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 sent a letter to the Petitioner being letter no.459/M dated 17.02.2018(Annexure-4 series) enclosing the Petrological Report of the State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh dated 01.02.2018 wherein the insitu density of the stone was determined to be 2.81 and directed the petitioner to calculate the royalty on the basis of the conversion factor i.e. 2.81insitu density and this is how conversion factor 2.81 insitu density came into existence.
74. Hence, the end result of the order dated Annexure 02.11.2017(Annexure-3)passed by the appellate authority Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, in Appeal Case No. 06/17-18, was that anentirely new conversion factor 2.81 insitu density came into existence, which had no legal backing as per the amended JMMC Rules,2004.
75. It requires to refer herein that Rule 29(1)(kh)and Schedule 2 of JMMC Rules,2004,holds the field for payment of royalty on minor minerals. Rule 29(1)(kh) of JMMCR,2004, states that payment royalty shall be on the basis of rate prescribed in Schedule-2 of the JMMCR,2004 and in the Schedule 2 of the JMMCR,2004, which was amended by Gazette Notification dated 19.09.2019(Annexure-7), provides royalty leviable on the basis of bulk volume „per cubic meter‟.
41
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
76. On perusal of Scheule-2,we find that Schedule-2 is titled as „Rate of Royalty of MinorMineral‟ and in Schedule-2,19 mineralsare listed and two columns are provided wherein rate of royalty are given in per cubic meter. In the first column rate of royalty in rupees per cubic meter,as applicable from 29.04.2015 in the State of Jharkhand and in the second column revised rate of royalty in rupees per cubic meter are given.
77. The appellate authority Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana, Dumka Circle, while deciding the Appeal Case No. 06/17-18, had bypassed the statutory provision provided in Rule29(1)(kh)and Schedule-2 of JMMC Rules,2004, which is for calculation of royaltyon minor minerals.Though in its order dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3), the appellate authority hadhimself noted that as per District Mining Office, demand was issuedaccording to Rule 29 of JMMS Rules, 2004, but, instead of taking into account the Rule 29 andSchedule 2 of JMMC Rules,2004,the appellate authority directed for determination of insitu density from State Geological Laboratory, Hazaribagh, and calculation of royalty based on insitu density, which was in violation of JMMC Rules,2004.
78. In spite of specific provision provided in Rule29(1)(kh) and Schedule-2 of JMMC Rules,2004,for the calculation of royalty, the order dated 2.11.2017 of the appellate authority to calculate royalty on the insitu density was not as per the law 42 2025:JHHC:32211-DB and appellate authority had passed the order dated 02.11.2017ignoring the mandate of JMMC Rules,2004.
79. Hence, consequential order dated17.02 2018(Annexure-4 series) passed by the Respondent No.3 District Mining Officer, Sahhibganj for calculation of royalty on the basis of conversion factor 2.81insitu density, has also not been passed as per the mandate of law as stipulated in Schedule-2 of JMMC Rules, 2004.
80. Hence, calculation of royalty shall beon „bulk volume‟ on the basis of rate provided in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004 and not on the basis of insitu volume or insitu density.
81. Further, it requires to refer herein that there is no dispute about the settled position of law that the quasi-judicial authority passing an order contrary to the statutory provision, the same will not be of any aid to the litigant concerned on the basis of the settled position of law that the statute will prevail and if any decision has been taken contrary to the command of the statute, the said order will amount to be passed in contrary to the law.
82. In its rejoinder petitioner has stated that option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of weight i.e. tonnes was arbitrarily removed which was contrary to the section 23C(2)(b) of the MMDR Act,1957, is misconceived for the reason that 23C(2)(b) of the MMDR Act,1957, provides for establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity of 43 2025:JHHC:32211-DB mineral being transported, but, in the present case, matters relates to calculation of royalty in on „bulk volume‟ on the basis of rate provided in Schedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004. Hence, both section 23C(2)(b) of the MMDR Act,1957 andSchedule-2 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004, operates in different field.
83. Hence, Issue No. I and II is decided against the petitioner. Re: issue No. III
84. The Issue No. III is whether writ of Mandamus can be issued upon the respondents to make necessary modification in the online portal to enable the petitioner to file applications for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight (i.e. tonne) for transportation of minerals from its mining site, is considered herein.
85. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatrespondents are restricting the petitioner to file online applications on its portal for issuance of Transport Challan only in terms of bulk volume of minerals, is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable, hence, respondent authorities shall make necessary modification in the online portal to enable the petitioner to file applications for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight i.e. tonne of minerals.
86. On going through the writ petition, we find that petitioneris aggrieved by the modification of proforma forms on the online portal sometime in the year 2020 as the option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of 44 2025:JHHC:32211-DB 'weight i.e. tonnes' was removed and only the option to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals in terms of 'volume i.e. cubic feet' was made available to the petitioner. So, the petitioner was restricted to enter the quantitative value of the stack of minerals only in terms of bulk volume of minerals i.e. in units of 'cubic feet', which according to the petitioner was contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Director, Mines dated 02.11.2017(Annexure-3).
87. To answer the Issue No.III, it would be pertinent to see the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "2017, Rules").
88. The State of Jharkhand in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23-C(1) and Section 23-C(2) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act,1957, enacted Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 whichprovided inter alia making applications for issuance of Transport/Mining Challan, issuance of Transport/Mining Challans, etc. were made online and consequently a lessee was now required to carry out all the said processes online, on the portal created by the state. The proforma forms were made available to all the lessees on the online portal under „2017, Rules‟, for carrying out all the processes.
89. Here, it is pertinent to go into the relevant provisions especially Rule 2(K) and Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals 45 2025:JHHC:32211-DB (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
90. Rule 2(K) of „2017, Rules‟provides definition of „JIMMS‟ which reads as under-
Rule 2(K):
"JIMMS-means Jharkhand Integrated Mines &Mineral Management System under the Department of Industries,Mines and Geology"
91. Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, is titled "Transport Challan", which is quoted herein below-
"9. Transport Challan. -(i) No person shall transport or otherwise remove or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transport challan duly generated through JIMMS. The Dealer desiring such challan should file an application online through JIMMS Portal in prescribed Form duly specifying all the particulars prescribed therein.
(ii) The applicant shall upload the original copy of the royalty paid Transport Challan issued by the lessee to such Dealer or the relevant documents showing payment of royalty on such mineral or other adequate proof of such payment.
(iii) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (i), the The District Mining Officer/Any such officer authorised by the Competent Authority shall communicate his approval rejection within fifteen (15) days on the JIMMS portal for issuing the Transport Challan in prescribed form for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as prescribed by him. The District Mining Officer/Any such officer authorized by the Competent Authority may reject an application to grant Transport Chalian for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant through JIMMS Portal."
92. Hence, Rule 9 of Rules 2017 deals with "Transport Challan‟‟ and Rule 9(1) provides that no person shall transport 46 2025:JHHC:32211-DB or otherwise remove or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transport challan duly generated through online JIMMS portal.
93. So, to comply with Rule 9 and other provisions of „2017, Rules‟, the State of Jharkhand has created online portal. Hence, nowlessee has to obtain a transport challan in prescribed Form duly generated through online portal to remove or carry away mineral from any place.
94. As such,"Transport Challan"itself has been created by the respondents in harmony with Schedule-2 of the JMMCR,2004andas per Schedule -2, calculation of royalty is based upon bulk volume on the basis of rate per cubic meter provided therein, which has already been dealt in Issue No. I and II. Therefore, Respondent no. 3 District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, had rightly replied to the petitioner in the impugned order vide Memo No.860/M dated 28.07.2020(Annexure-10), that rate of royalty of minor minerals has been leviable as specified in schedule-2 under the provision or Rule29(b) and based on volumetric quantity mentioned in the Transport challan form D.
95. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of writ of Mandamus upon the respondents to make necessary modification in the online portal to enable the petitioner to file applications for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight i.e. tonne, for transportation of minerals from its mining site, is not tenable herein asTransport Challan has been itself 47 2025:JHHC:32211-DB created by the respondents in tune with Schedule-2 of the JMMCR,2004 and Schedule-2 is itself provides rate of royalty on the basis of bulk volume in per cubic metre.
96. If this court issues direction for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight i.e. tonne, it will be beyond law for two reasons firstly, Schedule-2 of the JMMCR,2004, does not provide for calculation of royalty in terms of weight i.e. tonne and secondly, issuing directions to the authorities for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weight i.e. tonne, will amount to issuing direction to the legislative body to enact the legislation in a particular manner and it will be against the settled position of law and against the doctrine of separation of power between the judiciary and legislature.
97. Here it requires to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor & Administrator, H.P., (1971) 2 SCC 747, has held that no Court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact. Paragraph - 7 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"7. Simla was a part of Punjab till reorganization of Punjab in 1966. Simla and two other districts of the former State of Punjab were added on to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. Under the provisions of that Act, the laws in force, immediately before the appointed day, namely, October 1, 1966, in those districts were to continue in operation till the appropriate Legislature or competent authority altered the same. One of the laws that was in force in those areas is the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Section 6(1) of that Act provides:48
2025:JHHC:32211-DB "No tax shall be payable on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule B subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and no dealer shall charge sales tax on the sale of goods which are declared tax-free under this section."
Till August 31, 1966, Indian made foreign liquor was in Schedule B. But on that date the Government of Punjab in exercise of its powers conferred under proviso to Section 5 deleted Indian made foreign liquor from Schedule B and included the same in Schedule A to that Act. Thus, the sale of the said liquor became exigible to sales tax. This was the law in force in Punjab when reorganization took place. Hence Simla and other areas which were formerly parts of the State of undivided Punjab continued to be governed by that law even after reorganization. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision in that Act empowering the Government to exempt any assessee from payment of tax. Therefore it is clear that the appellant was liable to pay the tax imposed under the law. What the appellant really wants is a mandate from the Court to the competent authority to delete the concerned entry from Schedule A and include the same in Schedule B. We shall not go into the question whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh on its own authority was competent to make the alteration in question or not. We shall assume for our present purpose that it had such a power. The power to impose a tax is undoubtely a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the Legislature directly or subject to certain conditions the Legislature may delegate that power to some other authority. But the exercise of that power, whether by the Legislature or by its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No Court can issue a mandate to a Legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no Court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact. The relief as 49 2025:JHHC:32211-DB framed by the appellant in his writ petition does not bring out the real issue calling for determination. In reality he wants this Court to direct the Government to delete the entry in question from Schedule A and include the same in Schedule B. Article 265 of the Constitution lays down that no tax can be levied and collected except by authority of law. Hence the levy of a tax can only be done by the authority of law and not by any executive order. Unless the executive is specifically empowered by law to give any exemption, it cannot say that it will not enforce the law as against a particular person. No Court can give a direction to a Government to refrain from enforcing a provision of law. Under these circumstances, we must hold that the relief asked for by the appellant cannot be granted."
(emphasis supplied)
98. Further, Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of V.K. Naswa v. Union of India, (2012) 2 SCC 542, held that it is a settled legal proposition that the court can neither legislate nor issue a direction to the legislature to enactin a particular manner.Paragraph-6 and 18 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"6. It is a settled legal proposition that the court can neither legislate nor issue a direction to the legislature to enact in a particular manner.
18. Thus, it is crystal clear that the court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. Neither the court can legislate, nor has it any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner.''
99. Again, in case of Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, (2023) 20 SCC 736, Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that no constitutional court can issue a writ of mandamus to a 50 2025:JHHC:32211-DB legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The relevant paragraph of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"13. The law regarding power of the writ court to issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well settled. No constitutional court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law. The law has been laid down in this behalf in several decisions including a decision of this Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India and State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki. The only exception is where the Court finds that unless a rule-making power is exercised, the legislation cannot be effectively implemented."
(emphasis supplied)
100. Hence, as per law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of the Narinder Chand Hem Raj (supra), V.K. Naswa (supra) and K. Pushpavanam (supra), prayer for mandamus, for issuance of Transport Challan in terms of weighti.e. tonne, is not tenable, as no mandamus can beissued to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner.
101. Hence, Issue No.III, is decided against the petitioner. Issue No. IV
102. Issue No. IV is whether royalty shall be paid on the basis of advance payment or royalty shall be paid quarterly as per Part V clause 3 of the Lease Agreement between the parties.
103. It is the contention of the petitioner that the act of the respondents in demanding advance payment of royalty as against the mutually agreed quarterly mode payment, is in 51 2025:JHHC:32211-DB breach of the contractual obligations under Part V clause 3 of the binding Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, and as such demand of advance payment of royalty is arbitraryand illegal.
104. Again, ongoing to the impugned order, which is Memo No. 860/M dated 28.07.2020 (Annexure-10), we find that there is reference of letter no. JBSW/20-21/45 dated 13.07.2020(Annexure-9) and by the said letter petitioner had drawn attention of Respondent No.3 District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, to the Part V of the leasedeed executed on 12.05.2016 and requested the Respondent No. 3 to issue challan without demanding advance payment of royalty.
105. In response to the letter no. JBSW/20-21/45 dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure-9) of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 District Mining Officer, Sahebganj, by the impugned order dated 28.07.2020, had replied to the petitioner thatunder Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule,2004, as amended according to the insertion of Rule 29(अ), the lessee after the advance payment of mineral royalty will be able to displace or utilize mineral and permission to remove minerals from any mining lease area only will go when all the government dues in respect of that mining permit has been made.
106. For deciding the Issue No. IV, it will be pertinent to refer Part VClause 3 of the lease agreement executed on 12.05.2016 between the parties and Rule 29 (अ)ofJharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,2004.Part VClause 3 is being hereby quoted which reads as under:
52
2025:JHHC:32211-DB "3- स्वामिस्व की दर तथा भु गतान करने का तरीका- इस भाग के प्रावधान ं के अध्यधीन खनन पट्टाधारक झारखण्ड लघु खकनज समनु दान कनयमावली, 2004 की कद्वतीय अनुसूची में समयानु सार वकणवत दर से खननपट्टा क्षे त्र से उसके / उनके द्वारा खकनज / खकनज ं क कनकालने के कलए प्रकतवर्व के प्रत्ये क त्रैमाकसक माह में 15 वें तारीख क चार बराबर ककश् ं में राज्य सरकार क कर भु गतान करें गे।"
107. Further, Rule 29 of JMMCR,2004 was amended in the year 2007 by JMMC (Amendment) Rules,2007 vide gazette notification dated 08.11.2007 and Rule 29 (अ) was added, which is quoted herein below for ready reference- 29 (अ). लगान एवं स्वामित्व के भु गतान का तरीका-(1) पट्टा कनष्पादन की कतकथ से 15 कदन ं के अं दर उक्त कवत्तीय वर्व की िे र् अवकध के कलए राज्य सरकार क भूतल लगान का भुगतान पट्टाधारी द्वारा ककया जाएगा और तत्पश्चात प्रत्ये क वर्व 28 फरवरी तक आगामी कवत्तीय वर्व के भू तल लगान का भु गतान ककया जाएगा। (2) पट्टा कनष्पादन की कतकथ से 15 कदन ं के अंदर उक्त कवत्तीय वर्व की िे र्अवकध के कलए राज्य सरकार क कनयत लगान का भु गतान पट्टाधारी द्वारा ककया जाएगा और तत्पश्चात प्रत्येक वर्व 28 फरवरी तक आगामी कवत्तीय वर्व के कनयत लगान का भुगतान ककया जाएगा।
पट्टे धारी द्वारा भुगतेय स्वामित्व का ले खा सं धारण सिि पदामधकारी के स्तर पर मकया जायेगा तथा जै से ही खमनज पर दे य स्वामित्व की रामि मनयत लगान के सितुल्य या उससे अमधक हो जाती है तो पट्टे धारी दे य खमनज स्वामित्व के अमिि भुगतान के पश्चात्ही खमनज को खनन स्थल से हटा सकेगा अथवा उसका उपयोग कर सकेगा।
पट्टे धारी द्वारा भुगतान की गयी कनयत लगान की अकिम राकि उनके द्वारा दे य स्वाकमत्व की राकि में सामकजत कर ली जाएगी।
ककसी भी खनन पट्टे क्षे त्र से खकनज हटाने की अनु मकतत भी दी जाये गी जब उस खनन पट्टे के संदभव में समि सरकारी खनन बकाये का भु गतान कर कदया गया ह ।"
(emphasis supplied)
108. Hence, Rule 29 (अ) (2) of the JMMCR,2004 provides, inter alia, that the maintenance of accounts of the royalty payable by a lessee shall be done at the level of a competent officer and as soon as the due royalty amount becomes either equivalent to or 53 2025:JHHC:32211-DB more than the fixed rent, the lessee shall be able to remove or use the mineral from the mining site only after making advance payment of the due royalty amount.Rule 29 (अ) (2) further provides that permission to remove minerals from any mining lease area shall be given when all government dues in respect of the mining permit has been made.
109. On going through the Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016 between the parties, we find that in Part VII, its Clause 23, is titled „Compliance of Rules and Regulations‟ wherein it is agreed by the lessee that lessee shall comply with all the existing laws and such law,rule and regulation which will be enacted for activities of mine and minerals.Part VII Clause 23 of the lease agreement between the parties is quoted hereinbelow-
"23- मनयिों एवं मवमनयिों का अनुपालन करना -पट्टाधारक / एकाकधक पट्टाधारक, सरकार के सभी वतवमान कानू न तथा वेसे सभी कानू न, कनयम तथा कनयामक ज खान तथा खकनज ं के किया कलाप ं के कलए समय पर लागू ककये जाते है , तथा सुकवधाओं क प्रभाकवत करने के मामल ं का पू रा अनु पालन करे गें। ककसी गैर कानूनी अथवा खान से सं बंकधत ककसी अकनयकमत कायव के सं बंध में, इस उद्दे श्य से राज्य सरकार द्वारा प्राकधकृत ककसी पदाकधकारी द्वारा न कटस कदए जाने पर पट्टाधारक / एकाकधक पट्टाधारक, अथवा उनके कमवचारी गण ऐसे गैरकानूनी अथवा अवैध कायों से ह ने वाली सभी क्षकत के कलए राज्य सरकार क क्षकत पू कतव का भु गतान करने के कलए बाध्य ह ग ं ें।"
110. Further it needs to refer herein that as per Rule 41 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 which provides for payment of royalty as provided in the lease deed, therefore, otherwise also, the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the lease deed and are also bound as per Schedule 2 of the Rule, as amended from time to time.
54
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
111. Further it is settled position of law that once the parties have accepted the terms and conditions of lease or any agreement, it binds the parties and there cannot be any breach of terms and conditions.
112. Therefore, whenRule 29 (अ) (2) of the JMMCR,2004 provides for advance payment of royalty, then it has to be adhered by the petitioner and further, Part VII its Clause 23 of the Lease Agreement dated 12.03.2016, between the parties also provides that lesseehas consented for complying with all the existing laws and regulation which will be enacted for activities of mine and minerals.
113. Herein, it requires to refer herein thesettled position of law regarding the adherence to the terms and conditions of the Contract.
114. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma Vrs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 473 has categorically observed that a concluded contract pre supposes the existence of at least two parties with mutual rights and obligations and once a concluded contract comes into existence, it is axiomatic that such rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions thereof.
115. Further, it requires to refer herein the settled position of law that once the parties have accepted the terms and conditions of lease or any agreement, it binds the parties and there cannot be any breach of terms and conditions. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the 55 2025:JHHC:32211-DB Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 551 wherein it has been held that it must be borne in mind that the agreement between the parties was a written agreement and therefore the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement.
116. Further, the law is well settled that once the terms and conditions of the agreement have been accepted by the parties, it is not available to them to assail the same, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panna Lal and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 633 wherein it has been held that the licensee having voluntarily accepted the contract and after having fully exploited to its advantage the contract to the exclusion of other, cannot resile from the contract and cannot challenge the terms either on the ground of inconvenient
117. It requires to refer herein the settled position of law that if any terms and conditions have been agreed upon by the parties the same cannot be relaxed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise it will amount to re-write the terms and conditions of contract as has been held in the case of Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 it has been held that the Court has no 56 2025:JHHC:32211-DB jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties, for ready reference the same is being quoted as under:
"11. In the circumstances of this case, .......................... Otherwise, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties."
118. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that "after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent".
119. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, in the premises of the settled position of law that there cannot be any deviation from the terms and conditions once the contract has been entered in between the parties.
120. Hence, in view of the aforesaid Judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, demand of advance payment of royalty by the respondents is in consonance of Rule 29(अ)(2)of JMMCR,2004which provides advance payment of royalty by the lessee and also in consonance of Part VII Clause 23, of the Lease Agreement between the parties.
121. Accordingly, Issue No.IV, is decided against the petitioner.
57
2025:JHHC:32211-DB
122. The issues framed by this Court are answered accordingly.
123. In summing up,calculation of royalty on the basis of conversion factor 2.81 insitu density, as directed by the Respondent No.3 District Mining Offficer, Sahibganj, vide Memo No. 459/M dated 17.02 2018(Annexure-4 series) is against the law as stipulated in Rule 29 1(kh) and Schedule-2 of JMMC Rules,2004.
124. Further, the Lease Agreement was renewed for a period of 10 years from 05.03.2016 to 04.03.2026 vide lease agreement dated 12.03.2016, hence, calculation of royalty has to be done strictly on the basis of mandate of JMMC Rule and Schedule-2 of JMMC Rules,2004.
125. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed.
126. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 16.10.2025 Umesh/Abhishek A.F.R. 58