RANCHI, India, Sept. 17 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 18:

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

(i) "For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Respondent No.3 in Appeal Case No. 01/2020-21, communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 269/D.D.M. dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-15), wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order directing the Petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs. 22.00 lacs being the value of stone minerals alleged to have been illegally extracted by the Petitioner, has been upheld in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without due consideration of the relevant provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'J.M.M.C. Rules' for short).

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 990/M dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure-11) issued by Respondent No.5-District Mining Officer, Dumka, wherein the Petitioner, in alleged purported exercise of power under Rule 54(8) of the J.M.C.C. Rules, has been directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 22.00 lacs on the basis of alleged value of stone minerals illegally extracted by the Petitioner from its registered mining lease premises between the period January, 2016 to March, 2016.

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that action of the Petitioner in extraction of stone minerals from its registered mining lease premises between the period January, 2016 to March, 2016 cannot be termed as "illegal extraction" warranting imposition of penalty in terms of Rule 54(8) of the J.M.C.C. Rules, especially because the mining lease of the Petitioner was duly restored for the entire lease period commencing from 08.04.2012 to 07.04.2017."

2. The order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority in exercise of power conferred under Rule 65 of J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the remedy of revision is available as provided under Rule 62 of the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004.

4. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and after going through the order passed by the appellate authority, since the factual aspect is to be ascertained and the remedy is said to be available in this case which is lying before the revisional authority under Rule 62 of the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of revision, as provided under Rule 62 of the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004.

7. The writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the revisional authority.

8. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the issue of limitation may be directed to be considered by the revisional authority.

9. Considering the same, it is the revisional authority to take decision of the limitation, in accordance with law.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.