JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s): “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing order passed by Respondent-authorities as contained in Letter No. 507/M dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure-3), wherein application filed by Petitioner for renewal of its mining lease over an area of 4.60 acres situated at Mouza Kali Chatti, Khata No.23, Plot No. 10, District Giridih, has been rejected in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to consider and consequentially grant renewal of mining lease in favour of Petitioner, pertaining to mining lease of stone boulders over an area of over an area of 4.60 acres situated at Mouza Kali Chatti, Khata No.23, Plot No. 10, District Giridih for a period of 10 years commencing from 06.11.2024 to 05.11.2034 and consequentially grant lease in favour of Petitioner over the aforesaid area. (iii) 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-4), Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-5) and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (Annexure-6) 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-7).” 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 petitioner was granted mining lease over an area of 4.60 acres situated at Mouza Kali Chatti, Khata No.23, Plot No. 10, District Giridh for a period of 10 years commencing from 06.11.2014 to 05.11.2024. Prior to expiry of mining lease deed, the petitioner on 19.9.2024/20.9.2024 filed an application for renewal of mining lease in statutory Form ‘F’ and along with renewal application also enclosed requisite challan towards deposit of Renewal Fee of Rs. Prior to expiry of mining lease deed, the petitioner on 19.9.2024/20.9.2024 filed an application for renewal of mining lease in statutory Form ‘F’ and along with renewal application also enclosed requisite challan towards deposit of Renewal Fee of Rs. 5,000/- but the same was rejected by the respondent and vide order contained in Letter No. 507/M, dated 22.05.2025, it has been communicated to the petitioner that its application for mining lease has been rejected on the ground that the application has not been filed within the stipulated time. (ii) In context of above, it is stated that petitioner’s mining lease expired on 06.11.2024 and in terms of Rule 23(1) of JMCC Rules, application for renewal could have been filed minimum 90 days prior to expiry of mining lease i.e. up to 14th/15th August, 2024. However, petitioner filed its application for renewal on 19th/20th September, 2024, delay of about 35 days in filing of the renewal application. (iii) It is stated that the period prescribed of 90 days for filing application for renewal prior to expiry of mining lease, is merely directory in nature and not mandatory. Even if it is presumed that an application for renewal of mining lease is to be filed prior to 90 days of expiry of mining lease, said period of limitation prescribed is a condonable period of limitation for making application and there is no bar of applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 in that regard. (iv) The aforesaid fact is further fortified from the fact that Rule 23(1)(e) provides that if application for mining lease is not decided within the stipulated time, the mining lease would be deemed to have been extended for a further period of 90 days or till the order passed by Collector, whichever is earlier. (v) It is categorically stated herein that in the State of Jharkhand, aforesaid Rule 23(1)(e) is not being followed by Respondent- authorities and mining lease applications are not disposed of within the stipulated time and even no extension of mining lease is granted as stipulated under the aforesaid provisions. (vi) The petitioner filed its mining lease renewal application as far back as on 19th/20th September, 2024, but said renewal application of petitioner was not processed by Respondent-authorities and no communication whatsoever was made to Petitioner. (vi) The petitioner filed its mining lease renewal application as far back as on 19th/20th September, 2024, but said renewal application of petitioner was not processed by Respondent-authorities and no communication whatsoever was made to Petitioner. (vii) Petitioner was not even informed that there has been alleged delay in filing of mining lease renewal application, and, had the petitioner been granted opportunity, petitioner would have explained alleged delay in filing of renewal application, which was beyond the control of Petitioner. (viii) Petitioner had an opportunity to explain the delay of alleged 35 days in filing of its renewal application, but said opportunity was never extended to Petitioner and, straightaway, in an arbitrary manner, Respondents proceeded to reject renewal application of Petitioner in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. (ix) In context of the above, it is stated that State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957, framed Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and under Rule 22 of the said Rules, provisions have been incorporated for grant of mining lease and it has been provided, inter alia, that mining lease shall be granted as per statutory Form 'E' which has been prescribed under the Rules. (x) Statutory Form 'E' prescribed for grant of mining lease, in which lease has been granted in favour of petitioner vide Part-VIII, contains therein Promissory Note which has been extended by State of Jharkhand to a lessee. Under the said Promissory Note contained in Part-VIII, Clause-3, it has been clearly provided, inter alia, that a mining lessee can claim renewal for one time of its lease for a period not more than the period for which original lease has been granted. (xi) Rule 23 of JMMC Rules provides therein the mechanism for making application for renewal of mining lease, wherein it is provided, inter alia, that application for renewal of mining lease should be made minimum 90 days prior to expiry of the lease, but not before 180 days of the expiry of the lease, in statutory Form "F" along with Application Fee of Rs. 5000/- and in terms of further conditions stipulated therein. (xii) Petitioner's mining lease was scheduled to expire and, accordingly, in terms of Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, Petitioner filed an application in statutory Form 'F' before Respondent-authority for renewal of its mining lease. 5000/- and in terms of further conditions stipulated therein. (xii) Petitioner's mining lease was scheduled to expire and, accordingly, in terms of Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, Petitioner filed an application in statutory Form 'F' before Respondent-authority for renewal of its mining lease. In this context, it is stated that as per procedure, said application is to be filed in the name of Collector/District Mining Officer and the same is to be submitted in the office of District Mining Officer. (xiii) It is categorically stated herein that Petitioner filed its application by depositing requisite Application Fee of Rs. 5000/-before the office of the District Mining Officer along with all requisite/necessary documents as required for renewal of mining lease. (xiv) That Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or its officials, on the pretext of alleged amendments carried out under JMMC Rules, 2004, are not granting renewal of mining lease. In this context, it is stated that vide Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, Rule 9 of JMMC Rules, 2004 was amended extensively and, to the best of the understanding of Petitioner, pursuant to said amendment, it was provided, inter alia, that mining lease for minor minerals contained in Schedule-2 of the Rules having an area of more than 5 hectares of land, shall be granted through the process of Auction. It is humbly stated that said Rules only provided for grant of fresh mining lease, that too, over Raiyati land having an area of more than 5 hectares through the process of auction and said Rule had not put an embargo of auction in the matter pertaining to renewal of mining lease. 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. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II 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) 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. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., is held to be per incuriam. 22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 ¼³½ and ¼p½ , 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 ¼³½ and ¼p½ , 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 ¼p½ 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 ¼N½ 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 ¼t½ (12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9 ¼p½ 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 ¼³½ . 27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9 ¼p½ 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 ¼p½ 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 ¼³½ 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 ¼p½ . 45. 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.