JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: - (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent-authorities to process the application for renewal of mining lease dated 08.05.2025 filed by Petitioner pertaining to stone- boulders in respect of an area of 2.50 acres, situated at Mouza Padapahar, Thana No. 743, P.S. Noamundi (Kolhan), Khata No. 290 (Part), District West Singhbhum, and, consequently grant renewal of mining lease in favour of Petitioner. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to grant renewal of mining lease of stone boulders to Petitioner for a period from 14.08.2025 to 13.08.2035 in respect of an area of 2.50 acres, situated at Mouza Padapahar, Thana No. 743, P.S. Noamundi (Kolhan), Khata No. 290 (Part), District West Singhbhum. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2004 (for short 'JMMC Rules') vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-3), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-4) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-5) do not prohibit grant of renewal of mining lease, but only provides, inter alia, that any new lease over 3 hectares of land would be granted in terms Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2017 (Annexure-6). 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 application pertains to non-processing/non-consideration of application of Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease of stone boulders by Respondent-authority in a whimsical and arbitrary manner without assigning any adequate reason and deliberately stating reasons which are not borne out of records of the case. Detailed facts are stated hereinafter in subsequent paragraphs. (ii) The Petitioner was granted mining lease vide Lease Deed dated 14.08.2015 pertaining to stone boulders over an area of 2.50 acres, situated at Mouza Padapahar, Thana No. 743, P.S. Noamundi (Kolhan), Khata No. 290 (Part), District West Singhbhum. Said mining lease was valid for 10 years commencing from 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2025. Detailed facts are stated hereinafter in subsequent paragraphs. (ii) The Petitioner was granted mining lease vide Lease Deed dated 14.08.2015 pertaining to stone boulders over an area of 2.50 acres, situated at Mouza Padapahar, Thana No. 743, P.S. Noamundi (Kolhan), Khata No. 290 (Part), District West Singhbhum. Said mining lease was valid for 10 years commencing from 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2025. (iii) Thereafter, Petitioner applied for renewal of mining lease vide application for renewal dated 08.05.2025 before the competent authority, receipt of which was granted by Respondent-District Mining Officer, Chaibasa in Form 'B'. (iv) Despite the fact that Petitioner filed application for renewal of its mining lease, said application for renewal was not being considered by Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum on the alleged sole ground that after amendment carried out by virtue of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019, there is no provision for renewal of mining lease., Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that theauthority 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.