JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: - (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s commanding and directing to the respondents to grant the Mining Lease for the mineral stone over Plot No.11563 (P) consisting of an area of 8.00 acres of land, situated under Mouza- Markacho within district-Koderma, pursuant to application filed by the Petitioner on 31.12.2010, since despite all the legal formalities already being performed by the Petitioner and even securing Environmental Clearance Certificate being issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand vide Letter No. EC/SEIAA/2014- 15/477/2014/1614 dated 30.09.2015, the aforesaid application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of on merit in accordance with law till date due to missing of record and the information about the same had already been given to the police or lodging First Information Report vide Letter No. 65 dated 13.02.2015 issued under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma. AND (ii) Further to direct the respondents to consider concerning to grant of fresh mining lease over the land being notified through the District Gazette of district-Koderma in the fortnightly issue of dated 20.11.2009 and on the basis of which the Petitioner had applied for anticipation to have got valid lease and in which the substantial amount has already been invested by the Petitioner and presently due to negligence of the authority, the Petitioner has incurred irreparable loss and at the same time has also been deprived from the sources of his livelihood and earning in contravening the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; AND/OR (iii) Further for grant of such other relief/s, as Your Lordships for which the Petitioner is legally entitled for. Factual Matrix 2. Factual Matrix 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 in respect to the land bearing Plot No. 11563 (P) measuring an area of 8.00 acres of land situated under Mouza-Markacho, a mining lease for stone was granted to one Mahesh Prasad of the Village-Markacho and subsequently the lease was terminated and thereafter the area was notified for fresh settlement and was notified the term of Rule 46 of JMMC Rules, 2004 in the District Gazette, Koderma in the fortnightly issued on 20.11.2009. (ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid notification being issued on 20.11.2009 the Petitioner submitted his application for grant of mining lease in the name of “Ganga Pathar Udyog” by an application dated 31.12.2010 along with all the requisites, prescribed fee and the aforesaid application was also received by the Receiving Officer on 31.12.2010. After submission of the aforesaid application by the Petitioner the necessary enquiry and verification was made at the level of Circle Officer including the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma and on the basis of the report of karamchari being made on spot verification as well as on the basis of the record the karamchari submitted report to the Circle Officer stating therein that the nature of the applied land is hill and has not been settled with any else and is also beyond the demarcation of the forest land and recommended the case of the Petitioner for necessary action and likewise the Divisional Forest Officer vide Letter No. 2610 dated 10.10.2013 had also reported that the land is not the demarcation of forest, rather is situated at distance of 1 KM. (iii) After supervision of both the reports the application of the Petitioner on 31.12.2010 stood rejected due to efflux of time and thereafter the Petitioner moved the Revisional Court in Rev. Case No. 60 of 2011 and vide order dated 20.08.2015, the aforesaid revision was disposed of with the direction to Respondent No. 3 to hear the intervener and pass speaking order in light of the provisions contained in JMMC Rules, 2004 within 90 days and the Petitioner was directed to ensure that no illegal mining is done over the applied plot. (iv) During pendency of the aforesaid application, the Petitioner had also applied for approval of his mining project and the mining plan was approved by the competent authority vide Memo No. 419 dated 15.10.2014 issued under signature of the Deputy Director Drilling, Hazaribag. After approval of the mining plan the Petitioner submitted his application for grant of Environmental Clearance Certificate performing all the legal formalities and finally Letter No. EC/SEIAA/2014- 15/477/2014/1614 dated 30.09.2015 issued under signature of the Member Secretary, SEIAA, in the name of “Ganga Pathar Udyog", was issued. (v) Thereafter, in-spite of all the legal formalities being performed by the Petitioner for obtaining the Mining Lease in his favour, the matter remained pending before the authority concerned without any cogent ground, though the Petitioner persuading his matter time and again, but his efforts remain futile. (vi) Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that the records pertaining to grant of Mining Lease over his applied land has been lost from the Office of the Respondent No. 4 and on the basis of the report of the Dealing Assistant the information had been given to the Police, Koderma for lodging First Information Report vide Letter No. 65 dated 13.02.2015 issued under signature of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma. Due to non-availability of the record concerning to grant of mining lease over the alleged land, the application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of till date by the respondents irrespective of having no fault or any lapses on his part. (vii) It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has also incurred monetary loss from the year 2015 due to keeping his application pending without any valid and cogent reasons. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the factual as well as legal aspect in right perspective. 4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is fairly entitled for the consideration for sanction of the mining lease of the proposed site when all formalities have already been complied with as reflected from the documents available on the record. 5. 4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is fairly entitled for the consideration for sanction of the mining lease of the proposed site when all formalities have already been complied with as reflected from the documents available on the record. 5. It has been contended that it is matter of record and cannot be disputed by the respondents that due to non-availability of the record, though being reported missing subsequently from the office of the Respondent No. 4, the Petitioner should not be suffered due to the laches on behalf of the Respondents. Submissions of the learned counsel for the State respondent 6. While, on the other hand, the learned counsel Ms. Priyasha Priyadarshani, J.C. to AAG-III 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 (1) (?), 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. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the almost on similar point an issue has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 8. 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. Analysis 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the counter-affidavit. 10. It is evident from record that the writ petitioner pursuant to the notification being issued on 20.11.2009 the Petitioner submitted his application for grant of mining lease in the respect to the land bearing Plot No. 11563 (P) measuring an area of 8.00 acres of land situated under Mouza-Markacho, in the name of “Ganga Pathar Udyog” by an application dated 31.12.2010 along with all the requisites, prescribed fee. 11. 11. After submission of the aforesaid application by the Petitioner the necessary enquiry and verification was made at the level of Circle Officer including the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma and on the basis of the report of karamchari being made on spot verification as well as on the basis of the record the karamchari submitted report to the Circle Officer stating therein that the nature of the applied land is hill and has not been settled with any else and is also beyond the demarcation of the forest land and recommended the case of the Petitioner for necessary action. 12. After supervision the application of the Petitioner dated 31.12.2010 stood rejected due to efflux of time and thereafter the Petitioner moved the Revisional Court in Rev. Case No. 60 of 2011 and vide order dated 20.08.2015, the aforesaid revision was disposed of with the direction to Respondent No. 3 to hear the intervener and pass speaking order in light of the provisions contained in JMMC Rules, 2004 within 90 days. 13. During pendency of the aforesaid application, the mining plan was approved by the competent authority and after approval of the mining plan the Petitioner submitted his application for grant of Environmental Clearance Certificate which had also been issued under signature of the Member Secretary, SEIAA, in the name of Ganga Pathar Udyog". 14. In-spite of all the legal formalities being performed by the Petitioner for obtaining the Mining Lease in his favour, the matter remained pending before the authority concerned. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that the records pertaining to grant of Mining Lease over applied land has been lost from the Office of the Respondent No. 4 and due to non-availability of the record concerning to grant of mining lease over the alleged land, the application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of till date by the respondents irrespective of having no fault or any lapses on his part. 15. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that it the case of the petitioner that due to laches committed on the part of the respondent the said mining lease has not been granted to the petitioner till date. 16. 15. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that it the case of the petitioner that due to laches committed on the part of the respondent the said mining lease has not been granted to the petitioner till date. 16. The factual aspect which is not in dispute that the lease agreement has not been acted upon till date and JMMC Rule 2004 has been amended by insertion of the relevant provision due to the implication of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590 , and in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy. And Ors. , (2014) 9 SCC 516 . 17. This Court, therefore, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 9(1) (?), 9(?), Rule 9(?), Rule 9(?) and Rule 9(12) of the JMMC Rules for the purpose of consideration of lis. 18. It is evident that there has been an amendment in the JMMC Rules, 2004 and by virtue of said amendment, under the provisions of Rule 9(1) (?) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, lease for mining purpose can be granted on holding a proper auction. 19. Further, it would also be evident from the provision as contained in 9(?) of the amended Rule, 2004 that all the pending applications submitted for grant of mining lease before issuance of Amended Rule, 2017, on government land or raiyati land of more than 05.00 hectare will be automatically deemed to be rejected. 20. It is evident from perusal of Rule 9(?), 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(?) 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. 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 even also restriction has been put for the renewal of the lease on the basis of the application made by one or the other. 23. Further, we have perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, vide order dated 08.08.2025 wherein it has been categorically observed 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(1) (?), the lease is to be granted by way of auction, 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. (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. 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. 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.” 24. Further, in the present case, the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that due to non-submission of the required documents, the application of the petitioner became time barred as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004. 25. Further, in the present case, the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that due to non-submission of the required documents, the application of the petitioner became time barred as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004. 25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law as well as the factual aspect, 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 the amendment in the Rule, 2004 whereby the procedure for grant of lease has been amended and now the applicant has to take part in auction for grant of lease. 26. 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. 27. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that it is not a fit case where any command is to be issued upon the State for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner. 28. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed. 29. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.