JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs: “(A) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) /Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside theundated orderof the Court of Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand passed in Revision Case No. 29/2024 (Annexure-4) under Rule 63 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 communicated through Memo No. 1223/MC dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-5) of the Respondent Deputy Director (Hq.), Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunderthe Revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2024 of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma communicated vide Memo No. 1721/M dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-3) of District Mining Officer, Koderma has been disallowed. (B) Further for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order (s) / Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing the the order dated 17.10.2024 of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma communicated vide Memo No. 1721/M dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-3) of District Mining Officer, Koderma whereby and whereunder the renewal application dated 01.11.2022 of mining lease of the petitioner has been rejected. (C) Further for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions showing cause to the Respondents as how and under what circumstances, the application for renewal of mining lease alongwith the challan of renewal application fee dated 01.11.2022 has been treated to have been submitted on 22.11.2022 and to produce before this Hon'ble Court the statutory application register maintained by the Respondents under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 to ascertain the date of application and challan. (D) Upon quashing of aforesaid Memo dated 18.10.2024 and order dated 19.05.2025, for issuance of appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Respondent No.2 to consider the renewal application dated 01.11.2022 under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by reasoned and speaking order. (E) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s for restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Mining Lease hold area and further restraining the respondents from creating any third part right during the pendency of this Writ petition. (F) To pass such order/order(s) direction/direction(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner” 2. (F) To pass such order/order(s) direction/direction(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner” 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, needs to referred herein, which are as under: The petitioners held a mining lease of stone minor mineral in raiyati land situated in Mauza Paharpur Plot Nos. 511, 512(P), 513(P), 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 545, 546, 547(P), 548, 549, 550 & 552 P.S.-Nawalsahi District Koderma, for an Area of 2.4725 Acres, which has been duly executed by Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj on 14.10.2014 and registered by the District Sub Registrar Koderma on 31.10.2014. The lease hold had been for a period of 10 years from 04.02.2013 to 03.02.2023. Before expiry of the term of the aforesaid lease, the petitioner/applicant applied for renewal of mining lease on 01.11.2022 under rule 23 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 in the office of District Mining Officer, Koderma. It has been stated that in terms of the Rule 17 of the JMMC Rules, the respondents are legally obligated to maintain a register with respect to the applications for mining lease. The register requires the maintenance of records with respect to present applicant for challan of application fee deposited etc. The respondents did not dispose of the renewal application dated 01.11.2022 of the petitioner/applicant before expiry of mining lease period (04.02.2023) giving the benefit of statutory deemed extension of 90 days under rule 23(2)(Anga) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The Respondents had further failed to discharge their statutory duty in terms of Rule 17 of the JMMC Rules with respect to the applications duly accompanied by fee/challans. Further, it has been stated that after a lapse of 1 year 11 months, the Petitioner received a Memo No. 1721/M dated 18.10.2024 from the District Mining Officer, Koderma stating therein that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has rejected the renewal application vide order dated 17.10.2024, however, without assigning any reason whatsoever and further directed to remove belongings from the said mining lease area. The order dated 17.10.2024 is covert of any reasoning and no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to explain any circumstances although the challan of renewal application fee and the application has been filed well within the time on 01.11.2022. The order dated 17.10.2024 is covert of any reasoning and no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to explain any circumstances although the challan of renewal application fee and the application has been filed well within the time on 01.11.2022. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.10.2024 of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Application before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand being Revision Case No. 29/2024 and in the Revision also, the Petitioner pleaded and brought on record the application form as well as the challan of renewal application fee dated 01.11.2022. The Respondent-Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand passed an undated order in Revision Case No. 29/2024, whereby, the revision case has been disallowed under Rule 63 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, which has been communicated through Memo No. 1223/MC dated 19.05.2025 under the signature of Deputy Director (Hq.), Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that a lease deed has been entered in between the petitioners and the competent authority of the State Government for carrying out the mining operation of the Plot Nos. 511, 512(P), 513(P), 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 545, 546, 547(P), 548, 549, 550 & 552 P.S.-Nawalsahi District Koderma, for an Area of 2.4725 Acres which was valid up to 03.02.2023. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that before expiry of the validity of the lease deed, the due application was filed for renewal of the lease deed but the same has been rejected/dismissed upto Revisional Authority. Hence, which the present writ petition has been filed. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners: 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted by referring to the provision as contained in Rule 17 when the requirement has been made to make reference of the date of application and along with all the detail therein but no details have been recorded in the said register as required to be maintained by the authority in view of the provision of Rule 17 of the JMCC RULES , 2004. 6. It has been contended that there is no laches on the part of the petitioners since the application was filed within the stipulated period hence the authority ought to have taken into consideration the issue of renewal of the lease deed. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: 7. 6. It has been contended that there is no laches on the part of the petitioners since the application was filed within the stipulated period hence the authority ought to have taken into consideration the issue of renewal of the lease deed. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: 7. The learned Advocate General, while appearing for the State, has submitted by referring the various paragraphs of the counter- affidavit that there is no error in the impugned decisions taken by the 3 concurrent authorities, since, the application h as been found to be filed belatedly that is beyond the statutory period. 8. It has been submitted by referring to the document appended which is the application submitted by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner along with the details about furnishing the amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, on 02 November, 2022, as required to be submitted before the District Mining Officer, Koderma. 9. It has been contended that since the due application was made on 21 November, 2022 which was beyond the statutory period and as such the conscious decision has been taken by the authorities while rejecting the said application said to be submitted beyond the due date. 10. In addition thereto, it has been submitted by referring to the provision of Rule 9 (?) of the JMCC RULES , 2004, particularly, the provision as contained in 9 that whatever may be the situation st there cannot be any renewal or extension after 31 March, 2022 rather after the said date, all the settlement/allotment is to be made through auction process. 11. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that the validity of the lease deed was up to 03.02.2022, hence no relief can be granted in view of the statutory restriction of no renewal of lease after 31.03.2022 rather after the said date, the settlement/allotment is to be made through auction only. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 13. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 13. The issue has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the application for renewal was filed within the statutory period as per 9(?) the provision as contained in but the said application was rejected on the ground that the same has be en submitted after the due date as provided under the said provision. 14. The State has filed the counter affidavit appending therein the application so submitted by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner along with the copy showing the deposit of required amount by way of challan. 15. We, after going through the same, have found that it is an undated application, however acknowledgment of receipt has been shown to be 02 November, 2022 as per the reference of date made along with the seal of the concerned Office. 16. The amount although has been shown to be deposited on 01.11.2022, but the said application admittedly is beyond the statutory period from the date of the validity of the lease deed, i.e., 31.03.2022. 17. No rejoinder although has been filed but with respect to the issue of undated application, there is no reply and there cannot be any reply since the same is evident from the face of the said application having no reference of date therein. 18. This Court is of the view that when the application is undated, then the petitioners cannot come out by making claim of submission of application within the due date by casting accountability upon the State in not maintaining the register as required to be maintained under Rule 17 of the JMCC RULES , 2004. 19. It is the bounded duty of the litigant concerned to make out a case on the basis of its own pleading and it is not available for the writ petitioner to make out a case on the basis of the pleading as has been agitated or by taking aid of the statutory provision. 20. The issue of maintaining register could have been a ground if the writ petitioners would have made application by giving specific date but in absence of date, it cannot be said what is being said on behalf of the petitioners to be correct. 21. 20. The issue of maintaining register could have been a ground if the writ petitioners would have made application by giving specific date but in absence of date, it cannot be said what is being said on behalf of the petitioners to be correct. 21. It is pertinent to mention here that the Revisional Authority rejected the Revision Case No. 29 of 2024 on the ground that the renewal application has been filed by the petitioners on 22.11.2022 being delay of 17 days which is against the provision of the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules, 2004. 22. Moreover, it is admitted as per the statutory requirement as provided 9 (?) under the provision of Rule that the renewal application ought to have been made before 31.03.2022 but it is evident from the date on the challan receipt that the renewal application has been filed after statutory restriction, i.e., 31.03.2022. 23. But, herein the application so made as already been rejected and there is statutory restriction that there cannot be any renewal after 31.03.2022 as per the provision of Rule 9 if taken into consideration together particularly the provision as contained in Rule 9 (?) wherein it has been provided that if the validity of lease is operative after 31.03.2022, then the lease will be allowed to be operated till the date of validity but there cannot be extension on the principle that all the allotment through settlement is to be made by way of auction in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India and Ors. , (2014) 6 SCC 590 , holding therein that there cannot be any extension contrary to the statutory command. 24. We have already decided a similar case being W.P.(C) No. 3560 of 2025. The relevant paragraph needs to be referred herein, which reads 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. The relevant paragraph needs to be referred herein, which reads 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. 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.” 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for positive direction. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.