Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022 Kamal Khan, aged about 67 years, son of Late Besarat Ali Khan, resident of village Komarpur, P.O. Md. Bazar, P.S. Md. Bazar, District Birbhum (West Bengal). ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
2.Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
5.The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
6. The Circle Officer, Dumka, P.O Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. ... Respondents with W.P. (C) No. 3077 of 2022 Kamal Khan, aged about 67 years, son of Late Besarat Ali Khan, resident of village Komarpur, P.O. Md. Bazar, P.S. Md. Bazar, District Birbhum (West Bengal). ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
-1-
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
2.Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
5.The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka, Jharkhand.
6. The Circle Officer, Raneshwar, Dumka P.O Raghunathpur, P.S. Raneshwar, District Dumka. ... Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 4462 of 2022 M/s Sahil Stone Works, a partnership firm represented through one of its partner Ali Reja, aged about 48 years, son of Gulam Mustofa, resident of Gangadda, Radipur, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, Jharkhand. Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand).
-2-
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand). ...Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 4463 of 2022 Pinku Sekh, aged about 37 years, son of Gulam Mustafa, resident of resident of Gangadda, Radipur, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, Jharkhand. .... ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand). ...Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 4466 of 2022 Goutam Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Shambhu Singh, resident of Nichubazar, Ward No. 5, Nalhati, M, Birbhum, P.O. & P.S. Birbhum, West Bengal.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and -3- 2025:JHHC:29005-DB Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand). ...Respondents with W.P.(C) No.4648 of 2022 M/s Popular Stone Works, a proprietorship concern represented through its proprietor Jamirul Islam, aged about 46 years, son of Late Md. Mafijuddin Sk, resident of:
Villaage & P.O. Tejhati, P.S. Nalhati, District Birbhum, West Bengal.
Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Mines Directorate, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand).
5. District Mining Officer, Pakur, having its office at District Collectorate, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, (Jharkhand). ...Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 5214 of 2022 Tahid Alam, aged about 52 years, son of Md. Kasem, resident of Sonatorepara, Suri-I, P.O. Suiri, P.S. Suiri, -4- 2025:JHHC:29005-DB District Birbhum (West Bengal).
... Petitioner versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its Office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology. Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director, Directorate of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
5. The Certificate Officer cum Additional Collector, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
6. The District Mining Officer, Dumka, P.O. Dumka P.S. Dumka District Dumka (Jharkhand).
7. The Circle Officer, Raneshwar, Dumka, P.O Raghunathpur, P.S. Raneshwar, District Dumka (Jharkhand). ... ...Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advcoate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG II
--------
CAV on 20/08/2025 Pronounced on 18 /09/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
-5-
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
1. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ petitions are identical, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, all these matters have been tagged together. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Common Prayer made in the writ petitions:
2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as quoted as under:
3. The prayer as made in WPC No. 2859 of 2022 reads as under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-
5) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.
1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs) within a period of one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of 7,00,000 cubic feet sand from Mouza-Ragdih/ Naurangi, Thana No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 410, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs. 52, 50,000/-.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter -6- 2025:JHHC:29005-DB contained in memo no. 664/m. dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-
6) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit the outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7 days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for recovery of the amount.
4. The Prayer as made in WPC No. 3077 of 2022 reads as under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo no. 824/M. dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure-9) issued by District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and where under in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) within a period of one week, for the alleged illegal excavation of 22,500 cubic feet sand from Anchal- Ranehswar, Mouza- Diguli, Plot No. 2, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs. 1,68,750/-.
5. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4462 of 2022 reads as under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in -7- 2025:JHHC:29005-DB Memo No. 1847 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of differential royalty on 4,47,000 cubic feet; twice the value of 89,79,000 cubic feet stone excavated and penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns. b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022 contained in memo no. 1897 (Annexure-5) in terms of which the copy of the sectional measurement has been enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing the letter no. 2097 dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be raised as per the report of the measurement team. d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 288 dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit double the amount of value of mineral of i.e Rs.4,78,82,340/- through online mode within 15 days failing which it will be recovered in accordance with law; e. For quashing the letter no. 2005 dated 05.09.2023 -8- 2025:JHHC:29005-DB (Annexure-8) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
6. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4463 of 2022 reads as under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in Memo No. 1846 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of differential royalty on 1,31,000 cubic feet; twice the value of 2,86,11,400 stone excavated and penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022 contained in memo no. 1896 (Annexure-5) in terms of which the copy of the sectional measurement has been enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing the letter no. 2092 dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be raised as per the report of the measurement team. -9-
2025:JHHC:29005-DB d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 286 dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 40,11,89,182 i.e. double the amount of value of mineral through online mode within 15 days, otherwise legal action will be taken for recovery.
e. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 287 dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit royalty of Rs. 9,27,480/-; D.M.F.T. of Rs. 2,78,244/-; Environmental Cess of Rs. 9,275/-; Income Tax of Rs. 18,550/-; Penalty of Rs. 2,000/- through online mode within 15 days failing which it will be recovered in accordance with law;
f. For quashing the letter no. 2004 dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
7. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4466 of 2022 reads as under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in Memo No. 1848 dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of differential royalty on 5,82,500 cubic feet; twice the value of 1,69,26,000 stone excavated and penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns.
b. Further for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2022 contained in memo no. 1895 (Annexure-5) in terms of which the copy of the sectional measurement has been enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent would proceed ex-parte;
c. For quashing. the letter no. 2096 dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Dist. Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to submit the measurement of the leasehold area, failing which the demand would be raised as per the report of the measurement team. d. For quashing the order contained in memo no. 294 dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit royalty of Rs. 41,24,100/-; D.M.F.T. of Rs. 12,37,230/-; Environmental Cess of Rs. 41,241/-; Income Tax of Rs. 82,482/-; Penalty of Rs. 2,000/- and double the amount of value of mineral of Rs. 20,39,84,634/- through online mode within 15 days failing which it will be recovered in accordance with law;
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB e. For quashing the letter no. 2014 dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-8) issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount and to submit its explanation as to why the lease may not be terminated for committing the irregularities;
8. The prayer as made in WPC No. 4648 of 2022 reads as under:
a. For quashing the show-cause notice contained in Memo No. 1901 dated 02.09.2022(Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why demand letter and legal proceedings be not initiated for recovery of differential royalty on 2,48,625 cubic feet; twice the value of 2,24,36,490 cubic feet stone excavated and penalty for furnishing wrong monthly returns. b. Further for quashing the letter dated 10.09.2022 contained in memo no. 1977 (Annexure-5) in terms of which the copy of the sectional measurement has been enclosed and petitioner has been directed to file his reply within 07 days failing which concerned respondent would proceed ex-parte;
9. The prayer as made in WPC No. 5214 of 2022 reads as under:
(i).For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for
- 12 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure-4) issued by the District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner, alongwith one other person, has been jointly directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs) within a period of one week, for the illegal excavation of 70,000 cubic feet sand from the Mayurakshi River, situated at Mouza Ragdih/ Naurangi, District Dumka;
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 664/M. dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the District Mining Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit the outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter contained in Memo No. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7 days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for recovery of the amount;
(iii) Upon quashing of the aforesaid letters dated
- 13 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB 02.05.2022 and 09.05.2022, for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire proceedings in connection with Certificate Case No. 02/2022-23, including the demand notice dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure-10), initiated against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 85,86,050/-, pending before the Certificate Officer cum Additional Collector, Dumka;
Facts of the case:
10. Since similar facts and prayers have been made in these batch of writ petitions, as such for the sake of convenience, the brief facts of the first case of the batch matter, i.e., of W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022, is referred as under:
11. These writ petitions relate to the illegal demand raised by the respondents against the petitioners and in this case [W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022] it is for the purported excavation of sand from Mayurakshi river, Mouza-Ragdih/Naurangi, District-Dumka even though the petitioner has no concern with the excavation of sand either from Mayurakshi river or any other place whatsoever.
12. The District Mining Officer, Dumka lodged a First Information Report dated 06.03.2022 for the offences under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 4 and 54
- 14 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 [in short „JMMC Rules, 2004‟] against the petitioner and one Tauhid Alam for allegedly lifting sand from the river falling under Mouza Ragdih No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 401/410 an area 5095 Acres and also in the Mouza Naurangi No. 21/17 Anabadi Khata No. 218, Plot No. 2357/2895 falling under the territory of State of Jharkhand, through the machines and vehicles, and is transporting the same in the State of West Bengal.
13. It is stated that the petitioner is a reputed businessman engaged in the business of Black Stone Mining at Panchami under P.S. Md. Bazar, District Birbhum and has got no concern with the business of sand. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in the above-mentioned case by the informant with an ulterior motive and ill intention.
14. As per the allegation in the first information report the petitioner and one Tauhid Alam were engaged in illegal lifting of sand from Mayurakshi river at night, however, it is highly improbable to believe the prosecution story that the petitioner being an old age person suffering from several ailments would flee away at night from the river bed along with the JCB Poclain and other heavy machinery used in mining of sand and the informant along with the other police party was
- 15 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB unable to caught hold of them. Stand has been taken that no machine or vehicle or any type of other articles of this petitioner has been recovered from the place of occurrence. Further, the petitioner states that the petitioner has no concern either with the mining of sand from Mayurrakshi River or with the co-accused person namely Tauhid Alam @ Mansoor Alam @ Mansoor Mia and the petitioner has never visited the river bed of Mayurrakshi river for any reason whatsoever.
15. The petitioner is running the business of stone mining under name and style of M/s Kamal Stone Quarry and the petitioner has entered into mining lease dated 01.02.2018 with the State of West Bengal for the period of 15 years for mining of stone. The petitioner is running the said business in compliance of the mining rules and laws and has also obtained „Consent to Operate‟ from West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The petitioner is also engaged in mining of Black Stone under the name and style of M/s Jayanti Stone Quarry and the petitioner has entered into mining lease dated 01.02.2018 with the State of West Bengal for the period of 15 years in Mouza- Nischintapur, District- Birbhum. The petitioner is running the said business in compliance of the mining rules and laws and has also obtained „Consent to Operate‟ from West Bengal Pollution Control Board.
- 16 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
16. The petitioner is a respectable person and an Income Tax Payee and even from his I.T. return it will be apparent that he has no business of sand nor he deals in sand. The petitioner states that the District Magistrate, Birbhum has also certified that the petitioner, who is a businessman in District Birbhum, is a person of good moral character.
17. It has been stated that to the utter shock and dismay to the petitioner, pursuant to the registration of the first information report, on the basis of inspection report of the Circle Officer, Raneshwar, the District Mining Officer, Dumka in purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 vide letter contained in memo no. 625 dated 02.05.2022 directed the petitioner to make the payment of sum of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Five Lakhs) within a period of one week, for illegal excavation of 7,00,000 cubic feet sand from Mouza-Ragdih/Naurangi, Thana No.22, Anabadi Khata No. 24, Plot No. 410, Mayurakshi river, District- Dumka including the penalty amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- without following the due procedure of law.
18. The petitioner came to know about the registration of the FIR only on receipt of the aforesaid letter. Thereupon, the District Mining Officer, Dumka again issued letter contained in memo no. 664 dated 09.05.2022 as reminder to the letter dated 02.05.2022 and directed the petitioner to deposit the
- 17 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB outstanding amount as per directions contained in letter contained in memo no. 625/M. dated 02.05.2022 within 7 days, failing which appropriate action would be taken for recovery of the amount.
19. The petitioner states that the petitioner vide letter dated 20.05.2022 replied to letter dated 02.05.2022 issued by the District Mining Officer, Dumka stating therein that the petitioner has never visited the Mayurrakshi river and he is not engaged in the business of sand and the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of sand mafias of the locality. The petitioner further replied that no show cause has been issued upon the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Raneshwar or any other authority prior to imposition of penalty amount.
20. The petitioner states that the petitioner is old aged person suffering from several ailments and has undergone bypass heart surgery in the year 2019, and also suffering from renal problem as well as high blood sugar. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner has also undergone cataract operation and has poor vision capability at night, therefore, it is impossible for the petitioner to be involved in illegal mining of sand at night.
- 18 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
21. The petitioner has no concern with the lifting/ excavation of sand from Mayurakshi river in mouza- Ragdih/ Naurangi, District- Dumka and he has never visited the site.
22. The petitioner states that the respondents have raised an illegal demand on account of purported lifting/ excavation of sand only on the basis on surmises and conjectures without any basis/ material to show that the petitioner was involved in lifting of sand from Mayurakshi river in District- Dumka.
23. The petitioner states that even from perusal of the impugned demand letters, it would be evident that there is no material/evidence discussed in the said letters to show that the petitioner was engaged in the lifting/excavation of sand from Mayurakshi river.
24. Even otherwise the respondents have not acted in consonance with the settled principles of law including the principles of natural justice as the respondents have straightway issued demand letter upon the petitioner for payment of penalty along with the cost of sand lifted from the Mayurakshi river.
25. The petitioner states that the impugned order passed by the District Mining Officer is a mere eye wash as no physical and scientific measurement was done by the authorities in support of the alleged illegal lifting/excavation of sand.
- 19 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB Neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the inspection conducted by the respondent authorities nor any notice was served upon the petitioner prior to imposition of penalty amount upon the petitioner vide impugned letters.
26. The respondents conducted an inspection behind the back of the petitioner without giving any prior information to the petitioner. It is further submitted that that respondent authorities have resorted to post decisional hearing in computation of penalty amount along with other charges upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 58(4) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which is violative of principles of natural justice.
27. It is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to issue notice upon the person concerned disclosing the circumstances under which the proposed proceedings is sought to be initiated for the alleged extraction of mineral
28. The petitioner submits that the penalty order cannot be passed by the respondent authorities only on the basis of surmises and conjectures in absence of any evidence in support of the decision.
29. The petitioner states that no penal order can be passed without giving notice or hearing the affected persons
- 20 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB irrespective of the fact as to whether the Statue provides for the same or not.
30. It is further stated that the issuance of the impugned demand letter directing the petitioner to make the payment of penalty along with the royalty/ cost of mineral without asking for any explanation/reply is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of malice and unreasonableness on the part of the respondent authorities.
31. It has been submitted that the alleged inspection conducted by the respondents behind the back of the petitioner, without issuing any show cause to the petitioner, is non-est in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that no opportunity of hearing given to the affected person should not be an empty formality and reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that any action which has civil consequences for any person cannot be taken by the authorities without complying with the principles of natural justice. Further ground has been taken that respondents being instrumentality of the State, every action or administrative decision must be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play. It has been submitted that that the impugned letter(s) for imposition of cost of the sand allegedly lifted by the petitioner along with other penalty upon the petitioner is an arbitrary and mala fide act which is
- 21 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB in violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
32. Being aggrieved with the impugned order(s), the writ petitioners have approached to this Court by filing writ petitions for redressal of their grievance.
33. The respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit. For the sake of convenience, the averment as made in the counter affidavit filed in one of the writ petitions being WPC No. 2859 of 2022 is referred as under:
34. It has been stated that in pursuance of direction issued by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench Kolkata in OA no. 50/2021/EZ in the matter of Debashis Das Vs State of Jharkhand the respondents used to inspect Sand ghat of Dumka District and take proper action against those who were involved in illegal sand mining. During inquiry, it has been found that in the instant writ petitioner and one Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam of Village Sonaterpara District Birbhum (WB) were found involved in illegal sand mining in the area of Nawrangi and Ragdih sand ghats of Mayurakshi River and an FIR bearing Raneswar PS Case No. 8/2022 U/S 379 IPC and4 and 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 has been registered against both persons. Further, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner(s) of the concerned district(s), the Circle Officer(s) and other block officials made
- 22 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB inquiry and vide his letter no 401/R dated 30.04.22 reported that the instant petitioner and Tohid Alam excavated 700x200x5=700000 cubic feet sand from Ragdih Sand ghat Thana no. 22 plot no. 410 pertaining to Anabadi khata no. 24 of Mouza Ragdih illegally. On the basis of FIR lodged against the writ petitioner and Tohid Alam, report was submitted by Circle Officer Raneswar and the respondent no 5 issued demand notice bearing letter no 625/m dated 02.05.2022 directing them to deposit Rs. 5250000 the cost of Royalty of 700000 cubic feet sand @ Rs. 750 per hundred cubic feet and its equal penalty of Rs. 5250000; Total Rs. 10500000.00 within a week and reminder notice i.e. memo no. 664/m dated 09.05.2022 was also issued. After receiving demand notice and reminder notice as aforesaid the writ petitioner and Tohid Alam had not paid any amount as demanded by the respondent no. 5 within stipulated period of time, therefore respondent no. 5 instituted certificate case against writ petitioner and Tohid Alam before the certificate officer cum Additional Collector Dumka vide requisition no. 02/2022-23 and letter no 685/m dated 18.05.2022 to recover the demanded amount of Rs. 10500000/- from writ petitioner and Tohid Alam jointly under the provisions of section 4 and 6 of Bihar and Orissa Public demand recovery Act 1914.
- 23 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
35. Further, as per direction of National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Kolkata the respondent no. 5 issued a letter no. 929/m dated 11.07.2022 to the Circle Officer, Raneswar directing him to submit report by measuring the Ragdih sand ghat situated on plot no. 410 that how much illegal sand mining has been done by the writ petitioner Kamal Khan and another person Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam.
36. In pursuance of aforesaid direction, the Circle Officer Raneswar Vide letter no 626/R dated 15.07.22 reported that the writ petitioner Kamal Khan excavated 160 x 200x5 = Total 160000 cubic feet sand from Ragdih sand ghat situated over plot no. 401/410 pertaining to anabadi no. 24 of Mouza Ragdih No. 22, District Dumka illegally 5 Tohid Alam @ excavated 540x200x5= Total 540000cubic feet sand from Ragdih sandghat
37. On the basis of measurement report submitted by Circle Officer Raneswar the respondent no. 5 sent letter no. 968/m dated 16.07.2022 to the Certificate Officer Mines Cum Additional Collector, Dumka requesting him to severally recover Rs. 2400000/- from the writ petitioner, Kamal Khan which is the cost and fine of 160000 cubic feet sand illegally excavated. And the cost of 540000 cubic feet sand and fine total Rs 8100000/-shall be recovered from Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam against the total amount of Rs. 10500000/- in
- 24 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB which the Certificate case has been filed against them jointly. The letters have also been sent to the writ petitioner and Tohid Alam @Mansoor Alam for their information. As per measurement report submitted by Circle Officer Raneswar on 15.07.2022, the writ petitioner Kamal Khan is liable to pay Rs. 2400000/- which is the cost and fine of 160000 cubic feet illegally excavated. And Tohid Alam @ Mansoor Alam is liable to pay Rs. 8100000/- which is the cost and fine of 540000 cubic feet sand illegally excavated.
38. Further, it has been stated that recently the Circle Officer, Raneswar (Respondent no. 6) vide his letter no. 518/R dated 08.06.2022 reported that this writ petitioner excavated 150x25x6=22500 cubic feet sand from plot no. 02 of khata no. 114 of Mouza Diguli no. 44 of Raneswar block and on the basis of said report a demand notice vide memo no. 824/m dated 16.06.2022 has also been issued against the writ petitioner directing him to deposit its cost and equal fine total Rs. 337500/- within a week otherwise a certificate case will filed for its recovery. The respondent no. 5 send a reminder letter no. 945/m dated 13.07.2022 and requested him to deposit the amounts but still now the writ petitioner has not paid the said amount to the mining department. Submission of the Petitioners
- 25 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners has appeared in all the cases and has submitted that the District Mining Officer is having no jurisdiction to raise demand. Submission has been made that the punishment with respect to the illegal mining or excess mining as referred in Section 4 sub section 1(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [Herein after referred to act „ MMDR Act, 1957‟] is to be dealt with under the provision of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957, in which, it has been provided that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub- section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
40. The submission, therefore, has been made that save and except the provision as contained under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 there is no other provision under the MMDR Act, 1957 to inflict punishment and as such the illegal doer is only to be punished on the basis of reference of punishment as referred in Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction in view of the fact that punishment in the nature of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area, which
- 26 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB can only be inflicted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
41. It has been pointed out that the Co-ordinate Bench has delved upon the said issue and has held that the illegal doer can only be punished by way of complaint made by the State Government before the Court of criminal jurisdiction, as would be evident from order dated 15.07.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 322 of 2025.
42. Submission, therefore, has been made that herein also the penalty in terms of the money has been inflicted by the District Mining Officers of the concerned districts, which is contrary to the provisions as contained under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the said demand, as impugned in these writ petitions, are fit to be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction and authority.
43. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order(s) requires no interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of respondents-State:
44. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioners to take the ground that it is only under Section 21(1) of the Act, 1957 the illegal doers are to be inflicted with the punishment of imprisonment and/or fine
- 27 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB rather if Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that the State Government has also been conferred with the power to deal with illegal doers, which says that whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
45. It has been submitted that Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 is in consonance with the judgment referred by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors [(2017) 9 SCC 499]. The argument has been advanced that the moment the State Government has been conferred with the power to deal with the illegal doers in a case of illegal mining or illegal extraction of any mineral including sand and if in that eventuality the State Government has formulated a rule under conferment of power under Section 15 of the Act, 1957 or under Section 23C of the Act 1957 thereof it cannot be said that only on the basis of filing of complaint the illegal doer is involved in connection with illegal mining or illegal transportation or
- 28 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB storage of the mineral, they can be dealt with rather the State can also go to inflict the punishment in terms of money and for the aforesaid purpose, the provisions have been under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions‟ Rule, 2004 [amended in 2017], known as Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 [in short „JMMC Rules, 2017‟] enacted under the provisions of Section 15 of MMDR Act, 1957 by way of the provision as contained under Rule 54(1) of Rule 2004. The provision which is pari materia to Section 21(5) is available as under Rule 54(5) of the JMCC Rules, 2004 as amended in 2017.
46. The argument, therefore, has been advanced that if the provision of MMDR Act, 1957 along with the rules formulated thereunder by the State Government will be taken into consideration together then it would be evident that the State is also competent enough to inflict punishment in terms of the recovery of money on the basis of registration of complaint.
47. The submission has been made that the view which has been taken by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court that only recourse available to institute a complaint, therefore, is not in consonance with the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) where it has been held that
- 29 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB the State has been conferred with the power to deal with such situation and in that view of the matter and on the basis of the principle of binding precedence, the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) will be applicable being binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and not the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Analysis
48. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record as also the legal positions of law.
49. This Court has gathered from the argument that following issues have crept up for adjudication:
(i) Whether the District Mining Officer has jurisdiction to issue the demand due to want of conferment of power as per the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957?
(ii) Whether the view of the Co-ordinate Bench that only remedy available is to institute complaint to deal with such situation, is binding on the principle of judicial discipline; Or the view which has already been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India
- 30 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB & Ors. (supra) that the State Government has been conferred with the power to deal with such situation as would be evident from the provision of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, will be binding upon this Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Indian constitution?
50. Both the issues since are interlinked and, as such, are being taken up together for their consideration.
51. The issue has been agitated by learned counsel for the writ petitioners, that the remedy available to deal with such situation is by way of filing a complaint and that is the mandate of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as also having been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in WPC No. 322 of 2025 vide order dated 15.07.2025, upon which heavy reliance has been placed also by appending the said order in the paper book.
52. We, in order to consider the said issue, need to refer herein the aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench WPC No. 322 of 2025. For ready reference, the relevant part of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is quoted as under:
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned demand notice. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Rajhans
- 31 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB Refractories Private Limited (Supra.) wherein the demand notices issued by the District Mining Officer under section 21(5) of the Act, 1957 has been quashed being without jurisdiction.
26. Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957 empowers the State Government to recover unlawfully raised mineral or its price along with rent, royalty, or tax for the period of unauthorized occupation of the land from which the said mineral has been extracted from those persons who are involved in act of illegal mining. Section 26(2) of the Act, 1957 empowers the State Government to delegate its power exercisable under the said Act to subordinate officers or authorities by issuing notification in the official gazette specifying therein the powers and conditions in relation to the matters concerning mining and minerals.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court a copy of notification issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 1072/M dated 06.05.2025 in exercise of the power conferred under section 26(2) of the Act, 1957. By virtue of the said notification, delegation has been made to the Director, Mines and Additional Director, Mines to exercise the powers conferred under section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act, 1957 throughout the State of Jharkhand whereas the Deputy Director, Mines and District/Assistant Mining Officer have been authorised to exercise the said powers within their territorial jurisdiction.
28. Thus, at the time of issuance of the impugned demand notice i.e, on 30.12.2023, no such delegation of power was made by the State Government. Otherwise also, vide notification dated 06.05.2025, the respondent no. 2 has not been delegated the power conferred under section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act, 1957.
29. Moreover, on bare perusal of the rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004 it would be evident that the same provides for realization of the penalty equivalent to double the price of extracted minor mineral from a person who is accused of
- 32 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB extracting the same without having valid mining lease. It further empowers the State Government to take action for realization of rent, royalty or tax for the period of occupation of the land without the permission of lawful authority. Section 21(5) also empowers the State Government to recover rent, royalty or tax from the person who has raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land.
30. Thus, though rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004 as well as section 21(5) of the Act, 1957 empowers the State Government to realize rent, royalty or tax, however both the provisions are silent about the authority by whom the penalty is to be recovered.
31. In the case of Hindalco Industries (Supra), the issue fell for consideration of this Court as to whether the District Mining Officer has jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 54(5) of the Rules, 2004. In the said case, this Court while referring various provisions of the Act, 1957 as well as the Rules, 2004, quashed the order of penalty passed by the District Mining Officer under Section 54(5) of the Rules, 2004 observing as under-----
32. In the present case also, we are of the view that the penalty equivalent to double the price of minor mineral extracted by a person who is an accused of extracting the same without having valid mining lease as stipulated under rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004, is to be recovered by making a complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate or before the Special Court, if any, constituted under Section 30-B of the Act, 1957 which is empowered to take cognizance in the matter, for imposing penalty under rule 54(6) of the Rules, 2004.
33. It is well settled that if a law provides that an action should be taken in a specific manner, it implies that it must be done in that way, and any other method is not permitted. This is to ensure that the intent of the law is duly followed and the actions taken are legally sound.
34. It is thus held that the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction.
- 33 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
35. For the reasons as aforesaid, the demand notice as contained in Memo No. 1325/M dated 30.12.2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are however at liberty to demand and collect penalty from the petitioner in accordance with law. All other points including the factual issues raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are left open to be decided by the competent court of law, if the situation so arises.
36. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
37. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
53. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the Co- ordinate Bench has passed order on the premise of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 thereby coming to the conclusion that only the complaint case is to be filed to deal with such situation.
54. This Court is now proceeding to examine the issue as to whether only remedy available is to lodge a complaint or the State in the administrative side can also recover by way of inflicting penalty. This Court, therefore, is referring herein the relevant provision of Article 21 of the MMDR Act, which reads as under:
"21. Penalties.― [(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to
- 34 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.] (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land. [(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf.
(4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub- section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.] (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
[(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.] [Explanation.--On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression "raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transportany mineral by a person without prospecting licence,
- 35 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB mining lease or composite licence [exploration licence] or in contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]"
55. It is evident from Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 that in case of the violation of provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4, there is provision that the violator shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
56. Section 21(1) thus clarifies that if the „authorities of the State‟ has chosen to deal with such situation by taking a decision to institute a complaint then that is available under Section 21 (1) of the Act, 1957.
57. Section 21(2) is also in the light of provision of Section 21(1), which says that any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.
58. But if the content of sub-section (5) of Section 21 will be taken into consideration wherefrom it is evident that in case any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral
- 36 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
59. The aforesaid provision thus confers power upon the State Government to recover from such person the amount in proportion to the damage caused or the minerals extracted.
60. Section 15 of the Act 1957 at this juncture also needs to be referred herein. For the ready reference Section 15 of the 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 3 [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. 4 [(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;
- 37 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
(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;
(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
- 38 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB 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 3 [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 Government in respect of minor minerals:
Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of 3 [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.]
61. We are herein dealing with the minor mineral as per the allegation of the extraction of sand. The State Government under the aforesaid provision as under sub-Section 1 thereof by notification in the official gazette, frames rules for regulating the grant of mining lease or a quarrying licence or
- 39 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB other mineral concession in respect of minor mineral and for purposes connected therewith. The State Government has been conferred with the power to make out rule and in pursuant thereto rule has been formulated as JMMC Rules, 2004.
62. Another rule has also been formulated in view of provision of Section 23(C) wherein power has been conferred upon the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of mineral and in pursuance thereto a separate rule has been formulated as Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
63. At this juncture it will be purposeful to refer Rule 54 of Rules 2004, which is being quoted as under:
"[54, ख (1)
, इ ख
ओ , ,
, ख
50,000/-
[(2) इ ख
,
ख
[(3)
- 40 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
, इ
ख
[(4)
(2) ,
ख
24
]
[(5) " ख
, ख , ख
ख / ख
' '
ख ख , 2004 ' '
ख इ ,
01 ख
50,000.00 ( ) 1,00,000/-( ख)
'
ख
ख
इ (Bond Paper)
,
ख ,
इ
,ख
'[(6) , ख / - ,
ख इ ओ
,
ख [ख
]
,
,
- 41 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
,
"
64. Rule 54 starts from the sub-provision (1) wherein the punishment has been provided of one year imprisonment or fine or Rs. 50,000/- thereafter the sub-provision (2),3,4 provide seizure of the vehicles/tools and arresting of the concerned person by the competent officer whereas the quantum of punishment has been provided under Rule 54(5).
65. It would be relevant herein also to refer the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra).
66. Background of the said case is that a public interest petition was preferred for alleged widespread illegal mining and non-compliance with environmental and forest clearances in Odisha, leading the Supreme Court to initially restrain 102 mining leaseholders from operating. It involved complex issues of lease renewals under the Mines and Minerals Acts and Rules and the need for compensation for illegally extracted ore. The said 102 mining leases in the State of Orissa were identified as they were lacking the necessary permits and approvals to operate, leading to a Supreme Court order on 4th April, 2016 to suspend their operations. The case also focused on the validity and process of renewal of mining leases under the existing laws. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court ordered to ensure that mining companies pay compensation
- 42 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB for illegally extracted ore. The judgment passed in the case of Common Cause had broader impact and it has become landmark decision emphasizing the protection, social equity and stringent regulation of natural resources in India‟s mining Sector.
67. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment is quoted as under:
"84. Briefly therefore, the overall purpose and objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of responsibility including responsibility in protecting and preserving the environment and the flora of the area. Through this process, the holder of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "the FC Act"). Exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out. If the holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. In addition thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which provides for the termination of a mining lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central Government may request the State Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease."
153. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Amicus were of the opinion that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act require that the entire price of the illegally mined ore should be recovered from each defaulting lessee. Similarly, in its affidavit, the Union of India differs with the recommendation of CEC. According to the affidavit of the Union of India this would be contrary to the statutory scheme and in fact 100% recovery should be made under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR. We may note that only to this extent, the learned Attorney General differed with the view expressed by the Union of India and submitted that the recommendation of CEC to recover only 30% of the value of the illegally mined ore should be accepted.
154. In our opinion, there can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered from any defaulting lessee -- it should be 100%. If there has been illegal mining, the defaulting lessee must bear the consequences of the illegality and not be benefited by pocketing 70% of the illegally mined ore. It simply does not stand to reason why the State should be compelled to forego what is its due from the exploitation of a natural resource and on the contrary be a party in filling the coffers of defaulting lessees in an ill-gotten manner.
68. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph in particular paragraph 84, wherein it has been observed that the overall
- 43 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB purpose and objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of responsibility including responsibility in protecting and preserving the environment and the flora of the area.
69. It has further been observed that if the holder of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, (for short "the FC Act"), exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out.
70. If the holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. It has further been observed that in addition thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which provides for the termination of a mining lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central
- 44 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB Government may request the State Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease.
71. Further at paragraph 153, it is observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Amicus was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act require that the entire price of the illegally mined ore should be recovered from each defaulting lessee. Similarly, in its affidavit, the Union of India differs with the recommendation of CEC. According to the affidavit of the Union of India this would be contrary to the statutory scheme and in fact 100% recovery should be made under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the MMDR. We may note that only to this extent, the learned Attorney General differed with the view expressed by the Union of India and submitted that the recommendation of CEC to recover only 30% of the value of the illegally mined ore should be accepted.
72. Further, disapproving the opinion of learned Amicus to recover only 30% of the value of illegally mined ore, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at paragraph 154 of the judgment has been pleased to hold that there can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered from any defaulting lessee -- it should be 100%.
73. The moment the said dictum has come by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it goes without saying that the said recovery is to
- 45 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB be made by the State Government. The purpose of referring of the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause is to have a view on the applicability for the purpose of considering that the view which has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court binds this Court on the principle of judicial discipline or the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause being the law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
74. Thus, it is evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause, in particular paragraphs 84, 153 and 154, as quoted and referred hereinabove, and considering the content of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, it can be safely inferred that the State Government has got power to recover the amount by way of inflicting penalties.
75. The moment the State Government has been referred in the statute as also by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause, then the applicability of the rule framed either under Section 15(1) or 23(C)(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957will automatically be applicable since under the said provision of rule, the State has been conferred with the power/authority for realization of the said amount said to be in compliance of the mandate of
- 46 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause.
76. We are here now discussing on the issue of the binding effect of the judgment both on the principle of precedential value and the judicial discipline. There is no dispute about the legal proposition of law that the Co-ordinate Bench is not supposed to differ with the view taken by another Co-ordinate Bench on the principle of judicial discipline. But if the view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the same issue, then the question would be as to whether the principle of judicial discipline would be allowed to prevail upon the binding precedence of a law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court being a law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
77. It is settled position of law that Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by the Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs General Shri Kant Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 773, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
37. Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
"141.Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.--The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all
- 47 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB courts within the territory of India."
41. In view of Article 141 the law as laid down by this Court, as referred to above, is binding on all courts of India including the High Courts.
43. ----Therefore, it is always desirable for the High Court to act in terms of the law laid down by this Court as referred to above, which is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, allowing the aggrieved person to avail the remedy under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act.
78. This Court, considering the fact that the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, wherein the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the amount as per the mandate under Section 21(5) MMDR Act, 1957, hence, the same being the binding precedent is binding upon this Court.
79. Therefore, we, on the basis of proposition of law as laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court and considering the mandate of Section 21(5), are of the view that in addition to the complaint, as required to be instituted under Section 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 or 54(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017, the State has also got competence to raise the demand, which is impliedly clear from the observations made by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) in particular paragraph 153 and 154 thereof.
80. Now, the only question remains that the power is there under Section 54(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 by instituting a complaint/criminal case. The conferment of power under Section 54(5) of the Rules 2004 to the authority and reading
- 48 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB together with Rules, 2017, which we have dealt with in the judgment rendered in the case of Brahmaputra Metallics Limited vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.[ W.P.(C) 2456 OF 2020], wherein it has been dealt with that the power to inflict penalty in view of Rule 13 of the Rule, 2017 which is to be inflicted in terms of the provision of Rules 54 of Rules, 2004 and as such we have held that the penalty under Rule 13 of Rule 2017 is to be inflicted by the authority as has been referred under Rule 54(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004.
81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein, the State Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the executive authority. Accordingly, power has been conferred upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated 6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the reason notification has been issued conferring power upon the representative(s) of the State Government and therefore, the State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004.
- 49 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB
82. So far as the power which has been exercised by the District Mining Officer under the provision of Rule 54(8) now it is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has been taken that under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction, but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra) will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004.
83. The issues framed by this Court are answered accordingly against the petitioner.
84. It needs to refer herein that the learned Advocate General has submitted that the Government has come out with notification being Notification No. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities i.e., the Director (Mines) for entire State of Jharkhand;
- 50 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction.
85. It has further been submitted that if the petitioner intends to approach to the appropriate authority as per the conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 the petitioner may do so. However, he has submitted that the said concession is nothing to do with the ground as has been raised regarding the power to exercise under Rule 54(6) to inflict punishment in terms of the money.
86. In response, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has submitted that so far it relates to the passing of decision afresh in the changed circumstances of conferment of power vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 is concerned, he has agreed to the same and has submitted that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration to be done by the competent authority in view of conferment of power to the authorities concerned.
87. This Court considering the concession as has been recorded on behalf of writ petitioners, as has been given at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, conceding to the submission made by learned Advocate General to approach the authority in pursuance to the
- 51 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB conferment of power vide notification dated 06.05.2025 is of the view based upon such concession that the impugned order needs to be interfered with for the purpose of deciding the issue fresh.
88. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
89. The matters are remitted before the authorities concerned having the power as conferred vide notification no. 212 dated 6th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21(3), 21(4) and 21(5) for deciding the issue afresh.
90. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned authority raising all available points for its consideration in accordance with law within three weeks from date of passing of this order.
91. The authority concerned will decide the issue afresh on its own merit within a further period of six weeks. Even if the petitioner will not avail that liberty, then also the authority concerned will have liberty to pass the order afresh in accordance with law.
92. It is made clear that the orders so passed on the basis of concession of the learned counsel for the parties, as referred above, is nothing to do with the adjudication of the issue regarding the power which is to be exercised by the authority
- 52 -
2025:JHHC:29005-DB in view of power as contained under Section 54(6) of the Rules 2004 as answered herein above.
93. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.
94. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
18th September, 2025
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 53 -