1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By our order dated 18-02-2026, we had granted the respondents opportunity to file counter affidavit and listed this matter on 11.03.2026, High on Board, for final disposal.

3. Our order dated 18.02.2026, reads is as follows: -

                  1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                  2. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondents shall file counter affidavit in this matter.

                  3. List this matter on 11.03.2026 high on board under the heading “Final Disposal”.

                  4. Counter affidavit must be filed by 09.03.2026 after serving an advance copy of the same to learned counsel for the petitioner latest by 05.03.2026, if necessary, through e-mail.”

4. Today, Mr Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG, seeks extension of time to file a reply and at the same time submits that since the mining lease granted to the petitioner on 08.02.2016 has expired on 07.02.2026, no further extension of the mining lease period can be granted and the relief in this petition is rendered infructuous. For this, he relies on the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004, as amended on 28th September, 2020.

5. We have considered Mr Piyush Chitresh's contention, but we find no merit in it. The petitioner instituted this petition after applying to the respondents vide his application dated 25th September, 2025 for extension. This petition was instituted on 27th January 2026. The matter was adjourned on 18.02.2026 at the request of the State. In these circumstances and also for reasons discussed hereafter, it cannot be said that the relief in this petition is rendered infructuous.

6. There is no serious dispute on the factual aspects and, therefore, no case is made out for grant of further time to file counter-affidavit. The relief is now opposed relying upon the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as amended in 2020. These are legal issues, for which a counter affidavit is not necessary.

7. The petitioner was granted a mining lease on 08.02.2016 for the extraction of stones, a minor mineral, for a term of 10 years, which expires on 07.02.2026, about which there is no dispute.

8. Nirmala Gari and some others instituted W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024 in this Court, alleging breach of terms and conditions of the mining lease by the petitioner. This matter was taken up for the first time on 11.12.2024 and adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the State to 12.12.2024. On 12.12.2024, learned counsel for the State again applied for an adjournment, and the matter was posted on 13.12.2024. On 13.12.2024, this Court ordered notice to all the respondents and recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 (State Authorities) that the 3rd respondent has since suspended the mining license granted to the 7th respondent (petitioner herein) on 12.12.2024.

9. The contents of this Court’s order dated 13.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -

                  1. Notice to the respondents.

                  2. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.II accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 6.

                  3. It is brought to our notice by the counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that the 3rd respondent has since suspended the mining license granted to the 7th respondent on 12.12.2024.

                  4. The same is noted.

                  5. List on 21.02.2025.

                  6. Counter affidavit may be filed in the meantime.

10. The petitioner has contended that the petition instituted by Nirmala Gari and others was only for extortion of some amounts from the petitioner. It is further alleged that the suspension referred to in the order of 13.12.2024 was neither served upon the petitioner on the said date, nor was it preceded by even the minimum compliance of principles of natural justice and fair play.

11. The petitioner has placed on record a communication dated 12.12.2024 at Annexure-3 (page-64), which records that it was this Court that directed the respondents to suspend the petitioner's mining lease by its order dated 12.12.2024 made in W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024. The records would show that this court had made no such order on 12.12.2024 or any other date.

12. The petitioner applied to vacate the order dated 13.12.2024, but withdrew the application with liberty to avail other appropriate remedies. The petitioner, by instituting W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2025, challenged the suspension order dated 12.12.2024, arguing that it was ex facie arbitrary and vitiated by a total non-application of mind.

13. This Court disposed of W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2025 by order dated 17.04.2025, accepting the petitioner’s contention and setting aside the order dated 12.12.2024. The 3rd respondent, i.e. the District Mining Officer, Ranchi, was directed to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner.

14. The contents of this Court’s order dated 17.04.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) No. 1772 of 2025 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-

                  1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 12.12.20024 passed by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi ( 3rd respondent) suspending the mining license granted to the petitioner on the basis of an order said to be passed by this Court on 12.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024. Copy of the said order is placed by the petitioner at page 55 and in that order this Court had recorded as under:

                  “At the request of learned counsel for the respondent- State, list tomorrow i.e. on 13.12.2024.”

                  2. We fail to understand how on the basis of the above referred order there could be suspension of the mining lease of the petitioner. It is clear that the 3rd respondent had acted without application of mind while taking the decision to suspend the mining lease of the petitioner.

                  3. Though, counsel for the respondents sought time to file a counter affidavit, we fail to see how a counter affidavit can improve the case of the respondent no. 3, having regard to the contents of the order dt. 12.12.2024 passed by him.

                  4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner and the impugned order dt. 12.12.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside.

                  5. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.

15. Nirmala Gari’s W.P.(C) No. 6180 of 2024 was allowed to be withdrawn because the petitioners therein were seeking an unconditional withdrawal. The petitioner objected to the withdrawal and pointed out that the petitioner was unduly harassed due to the institution of the said petition. This Court, however, held that the petitioner was at liberty to avail himself of the remedy of filing a suit for damages against Nirmala Gari and other petitioners.

16. On account of the patently illegal suspension of the petitioner’s mining lease vide order dated 12.12.2024, the petitioner could not carry out any mining operations for the period between 12.12.2024 and 17.04.2025, i.e., a period of 04 months and 11 days. Therefore, the petitioner, by his representation dated 25.09.2025, requested the respondents to grant a proportionate extension in the mining lease period. Since this representation was not even attended to, the petitioner has instituted the present petition.

17. Once, this Court held that the suspension order dated 12.12.2024 was void because it was vitiated by total non-application of mind, the respondents were duty-bound to consider the petitioner's plea for proportionate extension. This is based on the principle of restitution. Otherwise, the respondents would unjustly deprive the petitioner of the benefits legitimately due to him for reasons attributable to the respondents themselves.

18. We have perused the provisions of Rule 9(10) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as amended in 2020, in order to evaluate Mr Piyush Chitresh’s contention. The rules do not suggest that after 31.03.2022, the validity of even the current mining leases expired, and the State had no option but to hold an auction for the grant of a fresh mining lease. This contention is inconsistent with the State Government's stance, which continued the petitioner’s mining lease up to 07.02.2026.

19. Similarly, the contention that after 07.02.2026, the State had no option but to auction the mining lease also cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner contends that, in law, his mining lease should not be deemed to have expired on 07.02.2026, but the period of his mining lease should have been legitimately extended by a further period of 04 months and 11 days, i.e., up to 18.06.2026 at the least.

20. Considering the gross facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the petitioner, who is a member of the Schedule Tribe Community, was not given a fair deal by the State. For no reason attributable to the petitioner, his mining lease was suspended. Even after the suspension was found to be void and arbitrary, his plea for extension was not even considered. Now, the attempt is to raise some hyper-technical and unfair pleas to deny the very limited relief that the petitioner now presses in this petition. Such arbitrary conduct cannot be countenanced, given that Article 14 of the Constitution abhors arbitrariness in State action.

21. Therefore, we allow this petition and direct the State Government to permit the petitioner to operate the mining lease for an additional period of 04 months and 11 days, starting from 16.03.2026. This allows the petitioner to continue operating the mining lease from 16.03.2026 to 25.07.2026. A formal order to this effect must be issued by the State within two weeks from today. Until then, the petitioner must be permitted to operate the mining lease from 16.03.2026 to 25.07.2026. After that, however, the State Government will be free to proceed with an auction for this mining lease.

22. The reason why we have granted the above relief is that the petitioner has not admittedly operated the mining lease for the period between 07.02.2026 and today because he did not want to be accused of operating a mining lease after the expiry of the period stated therein, and also because the present petition was pending before the Court.

23. Mr Choudhary presses for cost and points out that even the cost awarded by this Court in its judgment and order dated 17.04.2025, disposing of W.P(C) No. 1772 of 2025, has not been paid to the petitioner, according to the instructions received from the petitioner. Mr Piyush Chitresh states that the cost must have been paid, as otherwise, the petitioner would have approached the Court and made a grievance.

24. In this petition, we do not impose any cost, but if the cost directed by our order dated 17.04.2025 disposing of the W.P(C) No. 1772 of 2025 has still not been paid by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi, then the same must be deposited in this Court by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi, within two weeks from today.

25. If such costs are not deposited within two weeks, they shall carry interest @10% per annum from the date they became payable, and this interest component shall be recovered personally from the officer responsible for non-compliance/delay. This will be in addition to this Court considering whether any action should be initiated against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution.

26. However, we are hopeful that such an occasion will not arise in this petition. Once the amount is deposited, the Registry should transfer the same to the petitioner’s bank account, based on the identity and bank details to be furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under no circumstances should this amount be given to the petitioner, otherwise than through the normal banking channels.

27. This petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms by issuing the above directions.

28. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.