Order : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs: - “For issuance of an appropriate order(s)/, direction(s) directing the concerned respondents-authorities to execute a mining lease in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the Letter of Intent issued vide letter No.1561/M dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-4) with respect to mining of mineral stones over Mauza Gahrajor, PS- Tisri, Thana No.62, Khata No.1, Plot No.54/P, admeasuring 12 acres as the petitioner had already submitted the mining plan and environmental clearance as required in the said Letter of Intent and has completed all other necessary formalities for execution of mining lease..” 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm and all its partners are citizens of India and are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and have right to sue for protection of their legal right as enshrined under the Constitution of India. (ii) That the petitioner-Firm had applied for grant of mining lease for mineral/stones over land admeasuring 12 acres of land situated in Plot No.54/P, Khata No.1, PS- Tisri, Thana No.62, Mauza Gahrajor, District - Giridih. (iii) It is pleaded that after the application was made by the petitioner- Firm, the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih vide letter No. 1172/M dated 15.05.2017 sought clearance regarding the location of the area from the Forest Department to verify as to whether the said land is located beyond 10 kms from any forest land or not. (iv) It is pleaded that that the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih East Forest Division, Giridih vide letter No. 1440 dated 03.07.2017 clarified that the said land is not located over any forest area nor it is within a range of 500 meters of any forest land or 10 kms of any national park or other forest or biodiversity area. (v) Thereafter the District Mining Officer vide letter No. 1173 dated 15.05.2017 sought certain information with respect to the nature of land in question and its title over the same from the Circle Officer, Tisri. The Circle Officer vide letter No. 297 dated 16.06.2017 submitted a report giving clearance with respect to the said land. (v) Thereafter the District Mining Officer vide letter No. 1173 dated 15.05.2017 sought certain information with respect to the nature of land in question and its title over the same from the Circle Officer, Tisri. The Circle Officer vide letter No. 297 dated 16.06.2017 submitted a report giving clearance with respect to the said land. (vi) After consideration of the application, the respondents-authorities vide letter No.1561/M dated 05.07.2017 had issued a Letter of Intent wherein the petitioner was directed to submit the approved mining plan and environmental clearance certificate so that the lease deed can be executed. (vii) It is pleaded that that pursuant thereto, the petitioner got the approved mining plan prepared through the registered qualified practitioner of the Mining Department as well as applied for grant of environmental clearance along with application form, pre-feasibility report and the approved mining plan by depositing Rs.One Lacs by demand draft bearing No. 444917 dated 29.08.2017. (viii) It is pleaded that that the concerned authority being so satisfied after consideration of the application for grant of environmental clearance, granted environmental clearance vide letter No. 17 dated 10.02.2018 to the petitioner-Firm. (ix) It is pleaded that the petitioner thereafter submitted the same in the office of the respondent and since then had been approaching the respondents-authorities for execution of mining lease. (x) It is relevant to mention here that the State of Jharkhand had previously framed Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment)Rules, 2004 and subsequently, the State Government had framed the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 which was considered by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata in M.A. No.197/2017/EZ vide order dated 11 th April, 2017, the National Green Tribunal had directed the State of Jharkhand not to give effect to the notification publishing the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and had stayed the operation of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (in short ‘JMMC Rules’) and the said stay order was ultimately recalled. During the intervening period all applications were considered by the State of Jharkhand on the basis of the existing Rules as the new Rules were already stayed. However, the respondents-authorities despite submission of approved mining plan and environmental clearance, kept on delaying the execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. During the intervening period all applications were considered by the State of Jharkhand on the basis of the existing Rules as the new Rules were already stayed. However, the respondents-authorities despite submission of approved mining plan and environmental clearance, kept on delaying the execution of the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. (xi) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih sought for certain clarifications and guidelines in this regard from the State Government in the year 2018 itself and since then the matter was pending with the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand. (xii) It is pleaded that when no clarification was sent by the Director Mines, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide letter No. 823/M dated 02.11.2020 requested the Secretary, Department of the Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand to give necessary guidelines at the earliest. In the said letter, all facts had been mentioned in detail and it had been also mentioned that the petitioner in compliance of the Letter of Intent had already submitted the requisite approved mining plan, environmental clearance and had complied all other formalities. (xiii) It is pleaded that since then the matter is pending in the office of the Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. It is evident from the factual aspects that the letter of intent vide letter no.1561/M dated 05.07.2017 has been issued with respect to mining of mineral stones over the land in question and the condition in the said letter of intent is to be complied with as per the amended provision of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004. 5. The case of the writ petitioner is that he has made an application seeking environment clearance and the other documents and due to laches on the part of the competent authority of the State Government for issuance of the environment clearance the delay has been caused even after grant of environmental clearance the lease license has not been granted as some clarification has been sought for by the competent authority from the State Government. 6. It has been contended that the Rule 2004 has been amended by insertion of provision in Rule 9 ¼³½ , Rule 9 ¼p½ , and other allied provisions by virtue of amendment inserted in 2017 under the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES . 7. 6. It has been contended that the Rule 2004 has been amended by insertion of provision in Rule 9 ¼³½ , Rule 9 ¼p½ , and other allied provisions by virtue of amendment inserted in 2017 under the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES . 7. The grievance, therefore, of the present writ petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the statutory restriction has been imposed for not granting of mining lease after 31.03.2022 which cannot be made effective so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no laches lies on the part of the writ petitioner rather it is the State authorities who has not allowed the matter to be progressed so that the lease license be issued. 8. Therefore, the present writ petition. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 9. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that there is no laches lies on the part of the writ petitioner rather it is the State authorities who has not allowed the matter to be progressed so that the lease license be issued. 10. It has further been contended that the petitioner has also deposited the security amount for the aforesaid purpose which is lying pending before the competent authority. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-State 11. While, on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State, on the strength of the counter-affidavit has submitted that the question of laches which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in view of the fact that before the clarification which was to be given by the State having been sought for the Rule has been amended in the year 2017 by insertion of the provision of Rule 9(?), Rule 9(?), and other allied provisions of JMMC Rules, 2004 wherein the statutory restriction has been imposed for grant of lease to carry out the mining operation only on the basis of the auction and not on the basis of the application made by one or another. 12. It has been submitted by taking aid of the provision of Rule 9 of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , as amended in 2017 and 2019, wherein, it has been provided that on or after 31.03.2022, there cannot be renewal of licenses even by way of extension, rather, the licenses are to be granted only by virtue of auction. 13. 13. The learned State counsel based upon the implication of the said statutory command as per the amendment inserted in the JMMC Rules, 2004 has submitted that the petitioner as on date cannot be given any relief. 14. So far as the issue of refund of the amount which has been deposed by the writ petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that if the petitioner will make an application to that effect, then the same will be taken into consideration as per the law. Analysis 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitioner as also the counter-affidavit. 16. The factual aspect which is not in dispute that the lease agreement has not been acted upon due to some clarification having been sought for by the competent authority from the State Government. 17. By the time, the clarification was to come the Act has been amended by insertion of the provision of Rule 9 ¼³½ , Rule 9 ¼p½ , and other allied provisions of JMMC Rules, 2004 due to the implication of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Goa Foundation Vrs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 , holding therein that there cannot be any extension contrary to the statutory command. 18. This Court, therefore, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 9 ¼d½ , 9 ³½ , Rule 9 ¼p½ , Rule 9 ¼N½ and Rule 9(12) of the JMMC Rules for the purpose of consideration of lis. 19. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the Rules and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9 ¼d½ under the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, lease for mining purpose can only be granted on holding a proper auction. 20. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9 ¼³½ , of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES wherein it has been stipulated that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected. 21. 20. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9 ¼³½ , of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES wherein it has been stipulated that within 180 days from the issuance of notification, the Environmental Clearance has to be mandatorily produced and if the same is not produced, the letter of intent/application would be deemed to have been rejected. 21. Further, there is a proviso under Rule 9 ¼³½ which was added by the amendment dated 28.09.2020 and as per the said proviso, in case where due to delay in granting Environmental Clearance beyond 180 days, which is not attributable to a lessee, and the lease agreement was not approved, in those cases the Revisional Authority was given power to decide the matter on merits. 22. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that the statutory command after the aforesaid amendment is for allotment of the mining lease only on the basis of the auction and a restriction has been put for the renewal of the lease on the basis of the application made by one or the other. The specific provision has been given under Rule 9 (?) putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction. 23. The question, therefore, is that even if the question of laches as has been pointed out on behalf of the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration by answering the same, in favour of the writ petitioner, then what relief the petitioner will get in view of the statutory restriction for grant of mining lease after 31.03.2022. 24. Further, as per the settled position of law the issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) itself would not give a right to the petitioner of entering into a lease agreement for mining of minor minerals on the site in question without follow the all condition as stipulated in the JMMC Rule 2004 and particularly Rule 9 ¼³½ of the rule 2004. 25. The definition of Letter of Intent as provided in Rule 2 (29) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 reads as under:- 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 405 at paragraph no.7 thereof has held that Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 405 at paragraph no.7 thereof has held that Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. If the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Intent were not fulfilled by Respondent No.1, and if the conduct of Respondent No.1 was otherwise not such as would generate confidence, the appellant was entitled to withdraw the Letter of Intent. 27. It needs to refer herein that as per the record it is evident that the said LOI has been issued during suspension of the JMMC (amended) Rule 2017 as the said rule has been suspended by the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by NGT and the said order dated 11.04.2017 has been vacated vide order dated 20.07.2017 and thereafter vide order dated 13.08.2018 the respondent no.4 has recalled the granting order of the lease application dated 12.03.2018 as per rule 45 of the JMMC Rule 2004. 28. This Court, in backdrop of the aforesaid, is of the view that the petitioner, in view of the statutory restriction imposed in view of amendment in the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner merely because the application is pending and so far as the issue of laches is concerned even on consideration of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted. 29. However, the petitioner, since, is submitting that for no fault of his own, he has been made to suffer and for that, the remedy lies with the petitioner elsewhere and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 30. So far as, the issue of refund of amount is concerned, as has been submitted by the learned State counsel that if the petitioner will raise the aforesaid issue of refund of the said amount by making an application/representation, the same will be considered as per law. 31. In view thereof, if the petitioner, with respect to issue of refund of the security amount said to be deposited by the petitioner, is at liberty to approach the competent authority concerned for its refund. 32. If such application will be filed, the same will be taken into consideration in accordance with law by the authority concerned. 33. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 34. 32. If such application will be filed, the same will be taken into consideration in accordance with law by the authority concerned. 33. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 34. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.