ORDER : 1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders contained in Letter No. 1561/M in [W.P. (C) 5118 of 2019], Letter No. 1563/M in [W.P. (C) 5119 of 2019], Letter No. 1562/M in [W.P. (C) No. 5122 of 2019] and Letter No. 1564/M in [W.P. (C) No. 5161 of 2019] all dated 16.09.2019, whereby the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why the remaining period of its mining lease pertaining to stone mines be not terminated on the ground of suppression of actual production carried out in its mine and has further been directed to pay penalty for doing illegal mining as well as fine for wrong submission of monthly statement to the extent of Rs. 32,67,800/- Rs. 6,84,72,798/- and Rs. 50,70,207/- and Rs. 1,47,73,879/- respectively through online mode within 30 days and to deposit the original copy of the challan in the office of the respondent no. 4-the District Mining Officer, Pakur. The petitioner has further been directed to stop the excavation and transportation of mineral with respect to its mining lease area till the petitioner makes the aforesaid payment of the amount of penalty along with fine, which is contrary to the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “JMMC Rules, 2004”) and conditions of lease deeds. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the petitioner was granted mining lease for extraction of minor mineral (stone) from the respective mining leased area situated at different plots of Khata No. 56 in Mouza-Golpur, District-Pakur. The lease deeds were also executed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the consent to operate (CTO) permitting the petitioner for carrying out the said mining activities with respect to the concerned mining leased area was given by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 23.05.2016 and was renewed from time to time. The petitioner regularly filed monthly statements in statutory Form-K before the respondent no. 4 in compliance of its statutory obligation under Rule 48(3) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. The petitioner regularly filed monthly statements in statutory Form-K before the respondent no. 4 in compliance of its statutory obligation under Rule 48(3) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. Earlier, sectional measurement in the petitioner’s mines was taken by the officials of the Mining Department of the Government of Jharkhand and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to pay penalty alleging that it had shown excavation of minerals without excavating the same from the concerned mining lease area with an intention to obtain transit challan which was used by it for the purpose of transportation of mineral illegally excavated from some other area. The demands raised by the respondents were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 3178 of 2018, W.P. (C) No. 3182 of 2018, W.P. (C) No. 3186 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 3189 of 2018. The petitioner claimed in the said writ petitions that the measurement in the mining lease area was done in absence of its representative and there were several infirmities in the said measurement. This Court, vide order dated 30.08.2018 having found that the impugned demand notices were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, directed the respondents to decide the matter afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned orders contained in abovementioned letters giving rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing the impugned letters, the respondents failed to comply the direction of this Court dated 30.08.2018 in its true letter and spirit. It is further submitted that neither single opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur nor the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner, rather the impugned letters were issued hurriedly. From bare perusal of the impugned letters all dated 16.09.2019, it would be evident that the same have been issued in a pre-judged and pre-decided manner. It has been mentioned in the impugned letters that the work of the sectional measurement was undertaken by the Committee constituted by the respondent no. 2 under the Chairmanship of the respondent no. 3-the Additional Collector, Pakur between the period from 06.06.2019 to 31.07.2019. It has been mentioned in the impugned letters that the work of the sectional measurement was undertaken by the Committee constituted by the respondent no. 2 under the Chairmanship of the respondent no. 3-the Additional Collector, Pakur between the period from 06.06.2019 to 31.07.2019. However, the said period mentioned in the impugned letters on the face of it, is incorrect as sectional measurement was not taken during the aforesaid period as would be evident from the earlier communication dated 24.07.2019 itself, wherein the respondent no. 4 had informed that a meeting was convened in the office of the respondent no. 3 on 25.07.2019 for discussion on Sectional Measurement Report prepared by the Surveyors. It is further submitted that it has been stated in the impugned letters that on sectional measurement of the mineral excavated by the petitioner, it was found that the mineral excavated from the mining area is lesser than the monthly statements, thus the petitioner illegally excavated minerals from some other areas. However, the said allegation against the petitioner shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 2. If the petitioner has made less excavation than the alleged excavation shown in its monthly statements, then in such case how the petitioner can be held guilty of making excavation of such excess mineral from other areas than its mining lease area and utilizing the challan of the mining lease area for transportation of such excess mineral. The petitioner obtained transport challan and utilized the same to the extent of the mineral shown by it in its monthly returns excavated from its mining area and it did not obtain any excess challan. Thus, the first allegation levelled in the impugned order is untenable, both in the facts and in law. Mining challans were being issued to the petitioner by the office of the respondent no. 4 only after verifying the relevant facts relating to excavation of mineral from the mining lease area of the petitioner. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner that it excavated minerals from outside its mining lease area and utilized its transport challan for transportation of the said mineral on the face of it becomes untenable in view of the fact that mining challans were being issued only after proper verification by the office of the respondent no. 4. Thus, the allegation against the petitioner that it excavated minerals from outside its mining lease area and utilized its transport challan for transportation of the said mineral on the face of it becomes untenable in view of the fact that mining challans were being issued only after proper verification by the office of the respondent no. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is based on the measurement report of the respondent no. 5-Surveyor, however, the said measurement report was agreed to be corrected by the concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand in the meeting dated 25.07.2019 as evident from the letter no. 1220/M dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). In the impugned letters, reference has been made to the provisions of Rule 27(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 as well as Part-IX, Clause 3 of the lease deeds, however, under the said provisions, no such power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner to restrain the petitioner from carrying out mining activity till such time the amount of penalty is not deposited. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that subsequent to the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018, a Committee was constituted vide memo no. 623/M dated 12.04.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 which was headed by the respondent no. 3 consisting of the respondent no. 4 and the Mining Surveyor of the District Geology Office, Dumka to conduct re-measurement. A preparatory meeting to conduct the re-measurement was called by the respondent no. 3 on 25.05.2019 and it was decided to carry out the re-measurement from 06.06.2019 till completion of the work. The petitioner was also present in the said meeting and it was informed vide letter no. 836/Pakur dated 30.05.2019 regarding schedule of the re-measurement work. The sectional measurement was conducted between 06.06.2019 to 31.07.2019 with prior intimation to the petitioner with a direction to be present during the measurement work. After re-measurement of the leased area, it was found that the petitioner had actually extracted less quantity of mineral, however, had shown higher amount in the monthly returns which attracts the provision of Rule 54(1) and Rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. The re-measurement works were conducted in presence of the petitioner and its representative, but they didn’t put their signature on the measurement report. The re-measurement works were conducted in presence of the petitioner and its representative, but they didn’t put their signature on the measurement report. The petitioner has violated the rules, regulation as well as the terms and conditions of lease deed by doing illegal mining outside the leased area. Apart from that, it has also misplaced the facts by furnishing wrong production figure of the mineral in its monthly returns which was actually not extracted from the leased mine, but tried to give it a legal shape by using transport challans which is totally wrong and attracts rule 42(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. The petitioner has also not availed its legal remedy available to it by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under rule 65(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Earlier, the petitioner had moved before this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 3178 of 2018, W.P. (C) No. 3182 of 2018, W.P. (C) No. 3186 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 3189 of 2018 challenging the demand of penalties with regard to its respective mines. The said writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 30.08.2018. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as under: “14. In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned letters to the extent of imposition of penalty are hereby quashed/set aside. However, the respondents are directed to treat the said impugned letters as show cause notices, both, for penalty as well as for cancellation of mining lease and to pass the orders in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on providing the relevant documents.” 7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents did not comply the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018 and again issued demand letters without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on this score alone, the impugned letters may be quashed. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents did not comply the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018 and again issued demand letters without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on this score alone, the impugned letters may be quashed. 8. On the contrary, the claim of the respondents is that after the order of this Court, a Committee was formed for re-measurement and thereafter, the mines were re-measured in presence of the representative of the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner was found true and thus, no good ground is made out to interfere with the demand letters. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced measurement report of the mines which have been signed by all the members of the Committee. Since, according to the respondents, the petitioner’s representative refused to sign on the report, their signature is not present in the report. 9. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case and have also gone through the sequential steps which were followed by the parties after the order of this Court dated 30.08.2018. The petitioner vide letters dated 01.11.2018 and 05.01.2019 requested the respondent no. 2 to carry out fresh inspection in the mining lease area of the petitioner and to pass order after giving it personal hearing on providing relevant documents to it. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 623/M dated 12.04.2019 constituted a Committee headed by the respondent no. 3 which also consisted of the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur and Mining Surveyor of Geology Office, Dumka to conduct fresh measurement. Vide Office Order as contained in memo no. 836 dated 30.05.2019 issued by the respondent no. 3, five persons namely, Sri. Surendra Paswan - Surveyor, Sri. Vibhash Kumar - Surveyor, Sri. Subhash Yadav - Circle Inspector, Sri. Dhan Marandi - Karamchari and Sri. Manjoor Alam - Circle Amin were nominated for carrying out the inspection work for the measurement of the mines of the petitioner and the date for re-measurement was to commence from 06.06.2019 till completion of the said work. It is evident from letter no. 1214/M dated 24.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. Dhan Marandi - Karamchari and Sri. Manjoor Alam - Circle Amin were nominated for carrying out the inspection work for the measurement of the mines of the petitioner and the date for re-measurement was to commence from 06.06.2019 till completion of the said work. It is evident from letter no. 1214/M dated 24.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 4 that the Circle Officer, Pakuria, Surveyors and the authorized representative of the petitioner were called to attend the meeting going to be held on 25.07.2019 at 11.00 am for discussion on the measurement report. Again, letter no. 1220/M dated 26.07.2019 was issued by the respondent no. 4 to the Circle Officer, Pakuria, Surveyors and the authorized representative of the petitioner stating therein that a meeting was held on 25.07.2019 for discussion on the measurement report, wherein it was suggested to rectify the report submitted by Surveyor - Shri Surendra Paswan, which was accepted unanimously and thereafter, the Surveyor was asked to suggest amendment and the matter was again to be taken up on 31.07.2019 at 11.00 am. 10. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that the re-measurement was already done by 24.07.2019 and all the members of the Committee were called to discuss on the measurement report in the meeting dated 25.07.2019. Thus, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only two persons namely, Surveyor - Surendra Paswan and Surveyor - Vibhas Kumar carried out the inspection and/or measurement in the mining lease area of the petitioner and as such, I am of the view that the measurement report placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents alleged to have been signed on 30.07.2019 is merely a table work and the same has not been prepared at the spot. Moreover, in the said report, the signature of the petitioner’s representative is missing. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representative of the petitioner refused to sign the report, yet the same cannot be believed since there appears serious doubt in the manner of preparation of the said report. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent no. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representative of the petitioner refused to sign the report, yet the same cannot be believed since there appears serious doubt in the manner of preparation of the said report. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent no. 3 vide letters dated 09.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 to supply copy of the measurement report as also to fix a date for discussion on the same, however, without serving the report and making discussion in the matter, the respondent no. 2 straightway issued the impugned letters directing the petitioner to pay the penalty. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some substance keeping in view the sequence of events mentioned hereinabove. 12. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has straightway moved before this Court without availing its statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided in Rule 65(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004. 13. In the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discrimination. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so: and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes.” 14. It may thus be construed that a writ can be issued if the action of the public authorities is found to have suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice and the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondents has no leg to stand. 15. It appears that the Committee headed by the respondent no. 3 did not comply the order of the respondent no. 2 as contained in memo no. 623/M dated 12.04.2019 much less the order of this Court, rather prepared a table report, that too, in absence of the representative of the petitioner as also the said report was not supplied to it so as to sufficiently respond to the same. 16. 3 did not comply the order of the respondent no. 2 as contained in memo no. 623/M dated 12.04.2019 much less the order of this Court, rather prepared a table report, that too, in absence of the representative of the petitioner as also the said report was not supplied to it so as to sufficiently respond to the same. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with following observations: (i) The impugned letters being Letter No. 1561/M in [W.P. (C) 5118 of 2019], Letter No. 1563/M in [W.P. (C) 5119 of 2019], Letter No. 1562/M in [W.P. (C) No. 5122 of 2019] and Letter No. 1564/M in [W.P. (C) No. 5161 of 2019] are hereby quashed and set-aside not having been in accordance with the direction of this Court dated 30.08.2018 as well as the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur as contained in memo no. 623/M dated 12.04.2019. (ii) The Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur shall call a meeting in presence of the representative of the petitioner on any suitable date within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of this order to fix a date of inspection/ measurement of the respective leased premises of the petitioner. (iii) At the time of inspection/measurement, all the members of the Committee including the Additional Collector, Pakur as well as the representative of the petitioner shall remain present at the spot and after the inspection, a report shall be prepared at the spot in which all the persons present shall sign and a copy of the report shall be served to the representative of the petitioner so as to enable it to respond to the said report. (iv) The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass an appropriate order after duly considering the measurement report and other relevant documents as well as the reply of the petitioner and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to its representative.