JUDGMENT : Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: - (i) For quashing the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau as communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar whereby and whereunder the settlement of the Balu Ghat situated on Amanat River over 1.50 acres in Mouza- Jolanga, Lesliganj Circle, District- Palamau in favour of the petitioner for 03 Years made vide auction held on 16.02.2016, LOI issued on 17.02.2016 and Lease Deed No. 2020/PAL/1440/BK1/1417 registered on 06.03.2020 has been terminated on arbitrary, illegal and extraneous grounds. (ii) For issuance of a direction upon the respondents to extend the lease period of the Balu Ghat for 10 Months 06 Days from the date of restoration of the Balu Ghat to the petitioner, as due to termination of the settlement of the Balu Ghat vide the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, the petitioner was deprived from lifting of sand from the Balu Ghat from 30.04.2022 to 05.03.2023 (10 Months 06 Days) causing irreparable monetary loss and injury to the petitioner. (iii) For staying the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau as communicated to the petitioner vide Letter No.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar, during pendency of the present writ petition. (iv) For restraining the respondents from publishing any fresh General Notice of Auction for fresh settlement of the Balu Ghat to any other person, during pendency of the present writ petition. (v) In alternative, for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner against the monetary loss and injury caused to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, vide Letter No. 128/2012/226/M dated 25.01.2016, directed all Deputy Commissioners of Jharkhand to grant settlements of Balu Ghats for three financial years, effective from the date of execution of the Settlement Agreements. In the General Auction held on 16.02.2016, the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder at Rs.10,73,000.00 for settlement of a Balu Ghat situated on the Amanat River, over 1.50 acres bearing Plot No. 397, Thana- Lesliganj, Thana No. 341, Mouza- Jolanga of Juru, Gram Panchayat, Lesliganj Circle, District Palamau. Consequently, a Letter of Intent (L.O.I.) was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, on 17.02.2016, with certain terms and conditions. (ii) Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Lesliganj, issued a Land Verification Report dated 15.11.2016 of the Balu Ghat situated on Amanat River, for three financial years, which was in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar Forest Division vide letter no.1033 dated 28.02.2017 granted No Objection Certificate/Forest Clearance for the said Balu Ghat. (iv) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the environmental clearance certificate was granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.08.2017 issued by the Member Secretary-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, DEIAA, Palamau, Jharkhand. (v) Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau executed the Lease Deed No. 2020/PAL/1440/BK1/1417 and registered it on 06.03.2020, granting the petitioner settlement rights for the Balu Ghat for three financial years. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted Consent to Operate (CTO) for the Balu Ghat which was granted by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 08.05.2020. (vi) The aforesaid lease deed number registered on 06.03.2020 granting settlement of the Balu Ghat to the petitioner was valid for three financial years, w.e.f, 06.03.2020. (vii) Before expiry of the lease period, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau passed an order dated 29.04.2022 as communicated to the petitioner vide letter no.1163/M dated 29.04.2022 issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar, terminating the aforesaid lease deed number registered on 06.03.2020. Hence, the present writ petitioner has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the fact in right perspective. 4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to AG appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by this Court. 7. 5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by this Court. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- 15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e., (i) Whether the lease can be renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension. (ii) Whether seeking extension of the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period. (iii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule 9(?), wherein, the embargo has been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022. (iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case. (v) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., is held to be per incuriam. 22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 (?) and (?), wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. 22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 (?) and (?), wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9(?) provides that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022. 23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022. 24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9(?) as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction. 25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 (?)(12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9(?) will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares. 26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9(?). 27. But 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. 42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. 42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9(?) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9(?) of the JMMC Rules and once the application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9(?). 46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision.” 9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has found that the issues involved herein are identical to that of the case, which has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025. 11. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.