JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads as under:- 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter relates to a mining lease for the mineral iron ore situated in Village Charipathburu, District, West Singhbhum, spread over an area of 209.25 acres (84.68 hectares) commonly known as the Thakurani Iron Ore Mine. 4. The petitioner/predecessor-in-interest became the lessee of the said Mine on 01.04.1969. In accordance with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 a renewed mining lease deed was executed on 09.06.1986 for a period of 30 years from 01.01.1982 to 31.12.2011. The said lease deed was executed in favour of one Gyan Chand Jain. On or about 02.03.1997, the lease was duly transferred in favour of the present petitioner after obtaining prior approval of the State Government and the State Government has acknowledged the petitioner as a valid mining lessee. 5. An application for further renewal was made on 23.12.2010. While the aforesaid application for third renewal was pending consideration before the State Government, the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 came into effect from 12.01.2015 and the State Government by an order contained in letter No.184/M dated 22.01.2016 refused extension of the lease period in terms of Section 8A (6) of the MMDR Act, 1957, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2015. 6. Aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Revisional Authority being Revision Application No. 06/13/2016 RC-1. The said revision application was allowed by a Final order No. 25/2017 dated 18.01.2017 and the order of the State Government was set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Government for suitable reconsideration in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.04.2016 passed in WP(C) No.114 of 2014. 7. Thereafter, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner and extended the period of lease up to 31.03.2020. The said decision of the State Government was communicated to the petitioner by a letter contained in memo No. 851/M Chaibasa dated 18.05.2017. 8. 7. Thereafter, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner and extended the period of lease up to 31.03.2020. The said decision of the State Government was communicated to the petitioner by a letter contained in memo No. 851/M Chaibasa dated 18.05.2017. 8. On account of a delay by the State Government in extending the period of the petitioner's lease, the petitioner lost considerable time in getting the statutory clearances processed, a supplementary lease deed for extension was executed in favour of the petitioner on 21.07.2017. The said deed was registered on 31.08.2017. 9. The petitioner, in order to register the supplementary lease deed for extension, has paid Rs.1,58,65,250/- as stamp duty charges and Rs.86,09,851.31 as registration fee. 10. Despite the extension of the lease period, the petitioner could not commence its mining operation as it did not have consent to operate from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. However, as on date, the petitioner has obtained all the statutory clearances required for commencing and continuing mining operations. 11. It is the further case of the petitioner that in terms of the mining lease granted to the petitioner, the petitioner extracted Iron Ore entirely within the leased area only and has duly paid to the State Government upto date royalty, rent taxes, for all the minerals extracted by it. 12. The petitioner has duly observed all his governances and filed its statutory returns under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, which have been duly accepted by all the authorities concerned, such as the Indian Bureau of Mines and Stat Government. Likewise, other statutory returns have also been duly filed with the authorities concerned. 13. The office of the District Mining Office, Chaibasa, by a demand notice as contained in memo No.218/M dated 05.02.2013 issued under the signature of Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa, raised a demand on the petitioner of Rs.363,05,10,364.96 on account of mining in excess of the limits fixed by the EIA Notification of 1994, as also in excess of the limits fixed by the Environmental Clearance. 14. The said demand notice dated 05.02.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 1314/2013. 14. The said demand notice dated 05.02.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 1314/2013. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a notice purported to be a show cause notice contained in letter No. 820/M dated 30.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner which was duly responded by a letter dated 24.07.2014. 15. The District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, without assigning any reason as to why the explanation offered by the petitioner was not acceptable, issued a fresh demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.879,42,63,931/- (Rs.363,05,10,365/- towards principal and Rs.516,37,53,586/- as interest) vide his letter No. 464/M dated 02.05.2015. The said demand notice as contained in letter No.464/M dated 02.05.2015 was challenged by filing an application for amendment being I.A. No.3045 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.1314 of 2013. 16. The aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1314 of 2013 is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court, but however, in view of the subsequent development viz. issuance of the demand notice as contained in letter No. 1359/M dated 07.09.2017, which is being impugned herein, whereby the earlier demand notice as contained in letter No.464/M dated 02.05.2015 has been recalled/cancelled/withdrawn, the petitioner has been advised to withdraw the said writ petition, as the same has been rendered infractuous. 17. The District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, vide his letter No.1359/M dated 07.09.2017 ("Impugned demand notice") demanded a sum of Rs.335,12,96,492/- towards compensation under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, for alleged mining in excess than the limits fixed by the environmental clearance/permissible production. 18. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned demand notice has been issued purportedly in terms of the calculation methodology approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 194 of 2014. It was mentioned that the petitioner must pay the said amount by 31.12.2017, failing which the said amount will be recovered along with interest @ 24% per annum and other steps in accordance with law would also be taken. 19. It was mentioned that the petitioner must pay the said amount by 31.12.2017, failing which the said amount will be recovered along with interest @ 24% per annum and other steps in accordance with law would also be taken. 19. In the above circumstances, the petitioner could not commence its mining operations, despite execution of the supplementary lease deed, on account of the pending statutory clearances, but after it obtained all the statutory clearances, it submitted a representation to the Deputy Director of Mines, Chaibasa, on 21.09.2017 seeking permission to resume mining operations and sale of Iron Ore. On 22.09.2017 and 04.10.2017, the petitioner also represented before the Secretary, Department of Mines, Jhakhand, requesting to grant permission for resumption of mining operations but, no response was received by the petitioner on his aforesaid letters dated 21.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 04.10.2017. 20. The petitioner represented before the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum Chaibasa by a letter dated 28.12.2017 and through the said representation, inter alia, submitted that the judgment dated 02.08.2017 does not apply to the petitioner. The order dated 13.12.2017 passed in IA No.90729 of 2017 in WP(C) No.114 of 2014 was also brought to the notice of District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the payments by 31.12.2017 was in respect of the State of Odisha. 21. When no response was received by the petitioner from the authorities, the instant writ petition has been filed. 22. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10.12.2021 against which the present appeal has been preferred. 23. It appears from the pleading, as referred hereinabove, that the demand notice which was issued on 07.09.2017 in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499 , has been challenged by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.816 of 2018. 24. At the time of preliminary hearing, no notice had been issued and even the State was not called upon to file counter affidavit. However, learned State counsel raised an objection to maintainability of the writ petition on various grounds. 25. 24. At the time of preliminary hearing, no notice had been issued and even the State was not called upon to file counter affidavit. However, learned State counsel raised an objection to maintainability of the writ petition on various grounds. 25. The ground as has been referred, as it appears from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, that the writ petition was filed on 15.02.2018 which remained pending due to want of removal of defects for about three and half years. 26. The learned Single Judge, however, has allowed the petitioner to remove the defects which were removed on 06.10.2021. 27. The learned Single Judge has declined to refer the matter before the Division Bench or to keep the writ petition pending awaiting a decision in W.P.(C) No.7286 of 2017 and batch cases where the identical issues were/are pending for consideration before this Court and accordingly, has dismissed the writ petition. 28. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant: 29. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Swati Singh, learned counsel, representing the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition declining to exercise the discretionary power as conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the reason which has been assigned, suffers from error since the learned Single Judge has refused to exercise such extra ordinary jurisdiction by taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner considering it to be negligent or omission on the part of the applicant. 30. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge although has agreed to some extent that the petitioner has made out an arguable case but taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, the discretionary power cannot be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. 30. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge although has agreed to some extent that the petitioner has made out an arguable case but taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, the discretionary power cannot be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. It has been contended that the demand notice is having the liability upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.335,12,96,492/- and if the writ petitioner will not be heard on merit, then the writ petitioner will be remediless and the issue which has been raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition will remain unadjudicated which will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the order impugned may be interfered with so that the writ petitioner may have an opportunity to contest the case on merit for adjudication of the issue. 32. It has also been contended that the identical issues are pending for consideration before this Court. Submission of the learned counsel for the state- respondents: 33. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order since the writ petitioner, after having filed the writ petition, was not diligent in pursuing the writ petition and, in such circumstances, if the writ petition has been dismissed, which may not be interfered with. Analysis 34. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 35. The ground which has been argued on behalf of learned senior counsel for the appellant appears to be genuine since although the defect was not removed which has been considered as negligent approach of the litigant but the question herein is that if on that ground writ petition will not be entertained, then the issue which is the subject matter regarding the legality and propriety of the demand notice will remain undecided. 36. Further, the identical issues are pending for consideration and in that view of the matter also, the non-adjudication of the present issue will also highly prejudice the petitioner. 37. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 38. 37. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.816 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 38. The writ petition stands revived. 39. Accordingly, the instant Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.