Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs: -
“1(i) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order (s) /Direction(s) in the nature of certiorari to quash and declare the Rule 9(10) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017 notified vide Notification No. 149 dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure 7) and amended vide Notification dated 30.09.2000 (Annexure 8) as ultra vires to be in contravention with Sections 8A(3) and 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order (s) /Direction(s) commanding upon the Respondents to extend the lease-hold of the Petitioner for soap stone and dolomite for a period of 50 years as stipulated in terms of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Amendment Act 2015 which, provided for deemed extension of the mining lease for a period till 31.03.2020 or 50 years, whichever is later.”
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, are being referred herein: -
The father of the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Soap Stone and Dolomite, which was a major mineral over an area of 11.79 acres or 5.77 hectare in village Sua at Cadestral Survey Plot No. 183, P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 16.01.1980.
3. After expiry of the period of mining lease, the lessee filed an application for renewal of mining lease under the provisions of Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 on 15.01.1999.
4. The lessee Sardar Harban Singh died on 18.08.2003 and thereafter the name of his son Satbir Singh was mutated in the statutory mining lease register/application register vide order dated 21.08.2004 passed by the District Mining Officer, Palamau.
5. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Director, Mines vide letter his letter dated 10.06.2009 had also directed the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to process the aforesaid renewal application under the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the above-mentioned renewal applications were kept pending by the Respondent authorities for long.
7. During the pendency of the renewal applications, the Central Government promulgated the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 which was passed as an Amendment Act, 2015 on 27.03.2015 w.e.f. 12.01.2015.
8. The said Amendment brought about a notable change in Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and inserted a new section 8A for regulating the period of mining leases of minerals. The said amendment brought about remarkable changes in the power of State Government in matters of grant of and extension of mining leases.
9. Since the Petitioner has been granted the mining lease for non-captive purposes, hence, Section 8A(6) is attracted in the matter and in view of the fact that the Petitioner fulfills all the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the Petitioner Company became entitled for deemed extension of its mining lease for a period aforesaid.
10. Subsequent to the amendment in the MMDR Act, 1957, the Central Government vide its notification dated 10.02.2015, notified Soap Stone and Dolomite as minor mineral in exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
11. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notification pronouncing Soap Stone and Dolomite as a minor mineral came into force on 10.02.2015, but prior to the coming into force of the said notification when China Clay was still a major mineral, the mining lease of Petitioner-company has already deemed to have been extended by operation of law for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 16.01.1980 under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 which was later enacted as Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 with effect from 12.01.2015.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that since Soap Stone and Dolomite were major mineral on the date when the Amendment Act, 2015 came into force, the Petitioner Company vide its representation dated 10.07.2017 requested the Respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for the grant of extension of its mining lease till 15.01.2030 i.e. 50 years from the date of grant of original deed.
13. After lapse of about two years, the State Government belatedly notified 31 minerals including soap stone and dolomite as minor minerals within the ambit of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 vide notification dated 06.09.2016 which was later published as Gazette Notification No. 108 dated 27.01.2017.
14. It is contention of the petitioner that the development and regulation of Mines is a subject matter of both Union and State List, and hence, the deemed extension of mining lease in terms of MMDR Act shall prevail over any other enactment curtailing the period of lease. The Central Legislation i.e. amended M.M.D.R. Act provides for the deemed extension of the mining lease for a period of 50 years or a period upto 31.03.2020, whichever is later, but the State Law has omitted to incorporate the words "for a period of 50 years" and only stipulates for the extension of mining lease for a period upto 31.03.2020, which is in contravention to the Central enactment.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he is not pressing the prayer being prayer No.1(i) which pertains to assailing the validity of Rule 9(10) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017. However, it has been submitted that prayer No.1(ii) is being pressed.
16. The learned counsel, in order to press the prayer No.1(ii), has taken the following grounds: -
(i) The lease of the writ petitioner has been granted sometime in the year 1980 for Soap Stone and Dolomite, the day when the Soap Stone and Dolomite were under the major mineral.
(ii) The due application was submitted for extension of the lease deed but the said application was kept pending.
(iii) It has been submitted that in the meanwhile, the nature of Soap Stone and Dolomite have been changed from major mineral to minor mineral.
(iv) The ground, therefore, has been taken that the lease deed was under the major mineral granted in the year 1980 and the due application was pending before the State authority for its extension after the year 1999 and in the meanwhile, due to the amendment incorporated in Section 8A by virtue of amendment in the MMDR Act, 2015, particularly, Section 8A(3) thereof, the subsisting period for the mining lease will be for 50 years which will be counted from the year 1979 and, as such, the validity of the lease deed would be up to the year 2029.
(v) It has been contended that even accepting that the nature of Soap Stone and Dolomite have been changed from major mineral to minor mineral, then also in view of the provision of Rule 9(छ) of JMMC Rule 2004 (herein referred as rule 2004), the validity of the lease will be till the date of its operation and by taking aid of Section 8A(3) of the Act 1957, the same will be valid upto the year 2029 even if it has come under the fold of minor mineral.
(vi) The argument has been advanced that the provision as under Rule 9(छ) of Rules 2004 takes care of the interest of the writ petitioner reason being, the provision has been made therein that even though after 31.03.2022 the allotment is to be made only through auction and there will be no renewal/extension but if the validity of lease is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 then till the date of validity, the lease will be operative. Herein, by virtue of provision of Section 8A(3) of the Act 1957, the validity of lease will be for 50 years from the date of grant of lease, i.e., on 16.01.1980, which will end in the year 2030 and hence, the lease will be valid up to 15.01.1930 even though the statutory restriction is available under Rule 9(छ) of Rules 2004.
(vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar matter being W.P.(C) No. 4561 of 2019 has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, as such the instant petition may be disposed of in terms thereof.
(viii) Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his argument on the issue of deeming fiction of the statutory provision: -
(i) State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar and Others [(1953) 1 SCC 425]
(ii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. P. Kesavan and Another [(2004) 9 SCC 772]
(iii) Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 14 SCC 420]
(iv) Common Cause v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 11 SCC 455]
(v) Krishna Rai (Dead) through legal representatives and others v. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and Others [(2022) 8 SCC 713]
Submission made by the learned counsel for the State
17. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the State, while opposing the ground taken on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it is not a case where the provision of Section 8A is applicable since Section 8A of the Act 1957 does not include the Soap Stone and Dolomite, rather, the Soap Stone and Dolomite are under the Second Schedule which is to be dealt with under the relevant provision of Rule 9 of the JMMC Rule 2004 .
18. The ground has been taken that it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioner to take aid of the provision of Section 8A of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, reason being that the petitioner, after the completion of the period of lease made due application for extension/renewal which has been considered in terms of the provision of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 after the soap stone and dolomite having been declared to be minor mineral. The lease was granted and lost its validity after 31.03.2020.
19. It has, therefore, been contended that once the writ petitioner himself has accepted the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, now it is not available for him to take aid of the provision of Section 8A(3) of the Act 1957 to count the validity of the period of lease of 50 years from 1979, rather, the validity of the lease has already expired on 31.03.2020 and on consideration of the provision of Rule 9(छ) of Rule 2004, there cannot be any extension/renewal of the lease after 31.03.2022.
20. The argument has been advanced that the judgments upon which the reliance has been placed are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
21. However, he has disputed the fact that the similar issue has been decided in W.P.(c) No. 4561 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2025. Consideration
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition
23. We have also considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4561 of 2019 on 16.10.2025.
24. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 4561 of 2019 on 16.10.2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment being W.P.(C) No.4561 of 2019 cases, are being referred as under:-
“27.This Court, on consideration of the rival submission, needs to consider the following issues: -
I. Whether the provision of Section 8A of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is applicable once the writ petitioner has accepted the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by making application and based upon that the lease was extended till 31.03.2020, after change in the nature of China Clay from Major to Minor Mineral?
II. Whether the supplementary lease can be construed to be the subsisting lease/currency of lease within the meaning of section 8(A)(3)?
29. The lease was granted in favour of the writ petitioner to carry out the mining operation of China Clay sometime in the year 1979 and in consequence thereof, a lease deed was entered into on 09.01.1979 which was initially for 10 years.
30. The validity of lease was extended for a further period of 10 years making it operative up to 08.01.1999.
31. The writ petitioner, before expiry of the period of lease, has made application for further renewal. While it was lying pending, the nature of China Clay has been changed from Major Mineral to Minor Mineral by virtue of notification issued by the competent authority.
32The writ petitioner has filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.932/2017 for extension of its mining lease for 50 years with effect from the date of its initiation.
33.It needs to refer herein that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.932/2017 was preferred after lapse of about 18 years from the date of expiry of the period of lease which expired in the year 1999 but the same has been withdrawn vide order dated 27.03.2017.
34.The reason for withdrawal of the writ petition was that the State Government has notified the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017 vide Gazette Notification No.149 dated 02.03.2017 and inserted Rule 9(10) allowing deemed extension of the mining lease of 31 recently notified minor mineral for the period 31.03.2020.
36.The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, thereafter, has granted extension of the mining lease of the Petitioner Company for a period upto 31.03.2020 by executing a supplementary lease deed registered on 31.08.2017.
42.It requires to refer herein that minor minerals mean the minerals other than the minerals specified in First Schedule and these therefore become a State subject and are also defined in Section 3(e) of MMDR Act, 1957. For regulation of minor minerals, Ministry of Mines, Government of India has prescribed Minor Mineral Concession Rules to be formulated at the State level. Within these rules, minor minerals are specified under different categories or simply a list of minor minerals is provided. Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957 gives power to the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. Therefore, each State must have Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It is in conjunction with these minor mineral rules that the provisions may facilitate more local governance. For ready reference Section 3(e) of the Act 1957 is being quoted herein:
3. Definitions.―In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,―
(e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral;
42. It requires to refer herein that minor minerals mean the minerals other than the minerals specified in First Schedule and these therefore become a State subject and are also defined in Section 3(e) of MMDR Act, 1957. For regulation of minor minerals, Ministry of Mines, Government of India has prescribed Minor Mineral Concession Rules to be formulated at the State level. Within these rules, minor minerals are specified under different categories or simply a list of minor minerals is provided. Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957 gives power to the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. Therefore, each State must have Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It is in conjunction with these minor mineral rules that the provisions may facilitate more local governance.
43. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that Act, 1957 defines "minor minerals" as building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand (excluding that used for prescribed purposes), and any other mineral declared to be a minor mineral by the Central Government through an official notification. The Central Government has the power to add any other mineral to this list as a "minor mineral" by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. Herein admittedly by virtue of notification dated 10.02.2015 the Major mineral China-Clay became categorized into minor mineral. For ready reference the notification dated 10.02.2015 is being quoted herein:
MINISTRY OF MINES NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 10th February, 2015
S.O. 423(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), the Central Government hereby declares the following minerals to be minor minerals in addition to the minerals already declared by notification as minor minerals hereinbefore under the said clause:
(vii) China Clay;
47.It needs to refer herein that the State Government of Jharkhand had already notified 31 minerals including China Clay as minor minerals within the ambit of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 vide notification dated 06.09.2016 which was later published as Gazette Notification No. 108 dated 27.01.2017, for ready reference the same is being quoted herein which reads as under:
“IMAGE”
50. Herein the State Government has carried out amendment in JMMC Rule 2004 and statutory restriction has been inserted that there cannot be any renewal/extension after 31.03.2020 (later on extended till 31.03.2022) as per the provision of Rule 9, particularly the provision as contained in Rule 9 (छ), wherein it has been provided that if the validity of lease is operative after 31.03.2020, there cannot be extension thereafter on the principle that all the allotment through settlement is to be made by way of auction .
59. Further Section 8A (3) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 envisages that all mining lease grants made prior to insertion of Section 8A in the M.M.D.R. Act with effect from 12.01.2015 would also be deemed to have been made for a period of 50 years.
69. The claim of the writ petitioner that by virtue of provision of Section 8A(3) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, the lease is to be extended for further period of 50 years which will be operative till the year 2029 and by virtue of the provision of Rule 9(छ) of the J.M.M.C. Rules the same will be operative till its validity.
70. The petitioner, therefore, wants to take aid of the J.M.M.C. Rules by merging it with the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 on the basis of the provision of Section 8A(3).
71. Such relief cannot be granted because of the reason that once the rule has been formulated by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 15 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and if the mineral has come under the fold of the J.M.M.C. Rules, then the lease concerning the minor mineral is to be governed by the provision of J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 and therefore there will be no application of section 5 to 13 of the Act 1957 as per the Mandate of the Section 14 of the Act 1957, for ready reference the same is being quoted as under:
“14. [Sections 5 to 13] not to apply to minor minerals. ―The provisions of [sections 5 to 13] (inclusive) shall not apply to [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals.”
72. Further, it is evident from the factual aspect of the instant case that the aforesaid situation has also been accepted by the writ petitioner, the moment writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.932/2017 but the same has been withdrawn after amendment having been carried out in the J.M.M.C. Rules on change of the nature of mineral from major to minor so far as China Clay is concerned and based upon that the lease was also granted to be operative till 31.03.2020.
73. It is further admitted fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, thereafter, has granted extension of the mining lease of the Petitioner Company for a period upto 31.03.2020 by executing a supplementary lease deed registered on 31.08.2017. The aforesaid fact would be evident from averment made in paragraph 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the instant writ petitions which have been referred herein above.
75.The question to take aid of the provision of Section 8A (3) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, after the aforesaid changed situation and admission by the writ petitioner of applicability of the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 amended in the year 2017, cannot be made applicable that too counting the grant of lease from the year 1979 for the period of 50 years, i.e., up to 2029.
84. Herein the parameter since has been fixed for applicability of both the Acts, i.e, the Act of 1957 and the JMMC Rules, 2004 formulated under section 15 of the Act of 1957, therefore, is having no overlapping effect rather both provisions are to be enacted by the Central Government and the State Government so far as the Act of 1957 and JMMC Rules, 2004 respectively are concerned.
85. The issue of intermingling the provision of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 with the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 for the purpose of taking aid of the provision of Section 8A(3) of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and simultaneously also to take aid of Rule 9 of the J.M.M.C. Rules will not be available for the writ petitioner and in view of the law already laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, such argument is misconceived.
86. Once the writ petitioner has entered into the fold of the provision of J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004, then it is not available for him also to take aid of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 particularly Section 8A(3) and the moment China Clay has become minor mineral and the same has been notified by the State Government by way of the gazette notification then in such situation the applicability of the section 8A(3) of the Act 1957 is not available for the petitioner.
92. The deeming fiction will only come to help the party if the subsisting right has been created in favour of the concerned party that could have been on the following situations: -
(i) If the writ petitioner would have taken the legal recourse against pending representation submitted for extension/renewal of the lease as is being said that for extension of the lease, the application was made in the year 1999.
(ii) The writ petitioner has taken no legal recourse, rather, sat idle for about 17 - 18 years.
(iii) The force of the said pending representation will be deemed to lose its force the moment the writ petitioner has accepted the benefit under the provision of Rule 9(10) which has been notified by virtue of Gazette Notification No. 149 dated 02.03.2017.
(iv) The right would have been said to be available in a case of accrued/vested right if created under any provision of law, herein, the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. But it is not a case of accrued or vested right since the petitioner himself has shifted to J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 amended in 2017.
(v) Even the reliance which has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India and Ors, (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the primary requirement is of a subsisting mining lease and in the said case it has been observed that a lease holder would have a subsisting mining lease if the period of original grant is in currency. Additionally, a lease holder whose original lease has once expired would have a subsisting lease if the original lease having been renewed, the renewal period is in currency.
(vi) It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the lease holder was having with the subsisting mining lease, since the original grant was under the provision of MMDR Act 1957, the day when China Clay was in the category of Major Mineral.
(vii) Further, it is not the case based upon the facts as referred hereinabove that the original lease has since expired but by virtue of its renewal the subsisting lease is there and the renewal period is in currency, rather, it is a case where there was no subsisting lease as the lease was already expired in the year 1999 as was granted in the year 1979 under the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957.
(viii) Further, the lease which was granted on the strength of provision of Rule 9(10) of the J.M.M.C. Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 cannot be said to be available under the MMDR Act, 1957 so as to take aid of Section 8A(3) of MMDR Act, 1957. Moreover, the said lease has also expired on 31.03.2020.
93. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is hereby answering the issues against the writ petitioner.”
25. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the factual aspect is identical and the issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4561 of 2019 passed on 16.10.2025, hence, there is no reason to take distinct view.
26. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 16.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.4561 of 2019 and analogous cases.
27. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |