JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “a. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no.570/M, dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-8) issued by District Mining Officer, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Jamtara has imposed a penalty of Rs.5,8,02,755 to be paid by the petitioner under 54(6) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES for committing illegal mining; b. An appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the letter no. 597/M, dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Jamtara has directed the petitioners to pay Rs.58,02,755/- within one week failing which a certificate proceeding will be initiated against the petitioners; c. An appropriate Writ, order, direction for quashing dated the letter no.602/M, 01.10.2020 (Annexure 10) which was received through E-Mail by the petitioner at 05:51 PM sent by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara a further demand notice has been issued to the petitioner's firm by exercising power under section 54(6) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES wherein the petitioner's firm was directed to pay twice the amount which comes to Rs.1,16,05,510/- for committing illegal mining and further in the email by which the letter has been sent mentioned that earlier letter No. 571/M, dated 23.09.2020 and letter no.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 is being modified to the said extent. d. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure- 11) issued by the Certificate Officer in C.C. No.08/2020-21, Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle whereby a certificate proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner's firm for recovery of amount of Rs.1,16,05,510.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) The petitioners are the partners of M/s Shiv Durga Mining Project and they were granted mining lease for the period 07.10.2015 to 16.10.2025, i.e., for the period of 10 years for mining of stone mine at Teladih in Khata No.27, Plot No.848/B at village Teladih, P.O. & P.S. Karmtanr, District Jamtara. (ii) Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioner's firm has obtained Environmental Clearance from Impact State Assessment Jharkhand vide letter Level Authority, no.EC/SEIAA/2015-2016/811/2015/1315, dated 17.08.2015. (ii) Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioner's firm has obtained Environmental Clearance from Impact State Assessment Jharkhand vide letter Level Authority, no.EC/SEIAA/2015-2016/811/2015/1315, dated 17.08.2015. (iii) The petitioners have also got a clearance certificate from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 17.02.2016 and the said letter has been issued under the signature of Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. (iv) Thereafter mining lease was granted by the State of Jharkhand to the petitioner's firm. (v) The Circle Officer, Karmatanr vide letter dated 19.12.2015 addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara by which it has been stated that the measurement of the land has been done by Anchal Amin and the map of the land is annexed for the kind perusal along with the same letter. From perusal of the map it will be evident that in Plot No.848 there are three Dag Nos. i.e. plot no.848/A, 848/B & 848/C and in Dag No. 848/A whose measurement is one hectare that has already been mined earlier and 848/C is a road and the Dag no.848/B which has been shown in red colour in map is the area for which the mining lease has been granted to the petitioner's firm. (vi) Further, the mining plan has also been approved by the Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka issued by the Deputy Director, Mines, Dumka vide memo no.395/DDM, dated 23.05.2015 in the said letter which has been addressed to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara by the Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas Circle, Dumka who by exercising powers conferred under Rules 34D of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014 has approved the mining plan including the progressive mine closure plan and scheme of mining in respect of mining plan submitted under Rule 34C(i) and 34E(i) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The approval was made subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo dated 23.05.2015. (vii) Prior to the grant of mining lease, the Forest Clearance has also been taken which will be evident from the letter written by Forest Range Officer, Jamtara addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.107, dated 27.01.2015. The approval was made subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo dated 23.05.2015. (vii) Prior to the grant of mining lease, the Forest Clearance has also been taken which will be evident from the letter written by Forest Range Officer, Jamtara addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.107, dated 27.01.2015. (viii) It is stated that the office of the Circle Officer, Karmatanr vide letter no.256/A, dated 16.10.2014 addressed to District Mining Officer, Jamtara has specifically stated that the land in which the mining lease was granted has not been settled to any Raiyat after conducting an enquiry by the Circle Office, Karmatanr. (ix) Further, after complying all the formalities the petitioner's firm was doing mining in plot no.848/B measuring an area of 6.30 acre without any complaint from any corner. (x) It is the case of the writ petitioners that the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.384/M, dated 24.06.2020 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner's firm stating therein that why the mining operations is stopped in the mining area for which the mining lease has been granted to the petitioner's firm which is not in consonance with the conditions of the mining lease. (xi) Thereafter, the petitioners had given their reply to the said show cause notice stating therein that earlier when the mining operations were going on too much production has been done which was not sold due to which there had huge stock of the production. (xi) Thereafter, the petitioners had given their reply to the said show cause notice stating therein that earlier when the mining operations were going on too much production has been done which was not sold due to which there had huge stock of the production. (xii) Thereafter a letter no.569/M, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein it had been stated that earlier twice inspection has been carried out in the mining area in which the mining lease was granted to the petitioner's firm and it was found that the mining operations were stopped and for which earlier a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's firm on 24.06.2020 and a reply has also been given by the petitioner's firm which was not been found satisfactory and again on 21.09.2020, an inspection was carried out in the mining area for which the mining lease was granted wherein several irregularities were found by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's firm stating therein that why not mining lease granted to the petitioner's firm be not be cancelled and reply to the same may be reached to the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara within 30 days after receipt of the show cause letter. (xiii) On the same day, another letter was issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamatara being letter no. 570/M, dated 23.09.2020 wherein it has been stated by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara that on 15.09.2020, the mining area for which the mining lease was granted to the petitioner's firm at Village Teliadih in plot no.848 measuring an area of 8.30 acre, a joint inspection conducted by the SDO, Jamtara and after conducting the said inspection it was informed by the SDO, Jamtara that illegal mining has been done in the area 848/M which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the basis of the said information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been done in plot no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining operations have been done by the petitioner's firm and it was further been stated in the said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder i.e. M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of stone mining and as such the extra mining i.e. approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft of stone mining has illegally been done by the petitioner's firm and accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004 the demand notice was issued to the petitioner's firm and the petitioner's firm were directed to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- as a penalty within one week from the date of receipt of the letter. (xiv) Further, again the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter No.597/M dated 01.10.2020 which was received through email by the petitioner's firm wherein it has been stated that earlier a letter dated 23.09.2020 has already been issued by which the petitioner's firm was directed to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- for the illegal mining committed outside the mining area for which the mining lease was granted to the petitioner's firm and accordingly, again it was directed to the petitioner's to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- within one week from the date of issuance of the letter and if the said is not paid a certificate proceeding shall be initiated against the petitioner's firm. (xv) Thereafter, again a letter was issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.602/M, dated 01.10.2020 i.e. on the same day which was received by the petitioner's firm through Email on the same day i.e. 05:51 PM and in the said letter it has been mentioned that that illegal mining has been done in the area 848/M which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the basis of the said information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been done in plot no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining operations have been done by the petitioner's firm and it is mentioned in the said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder i.e. M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of stone mining and as such the extra mining i.e. approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft of stone mining has illegally been done by the petitioner's firm and accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004, twice the amount has to be recovered from the Mining Lease Holder who has done the illegal mining and accordingly a demand notice was issued to the petitioner's firm to deposit Rs.1,16,05,510 (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Five hundred and Ten). In the said letter it has further been stated that the earlier letters issued by the District Mining Officer being letter No.571/M, dated 23.09.2020 and letter No.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 stands modified to this extent. (xvi) Further, a notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 was issued by the Certificate Officer -cum- Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle whereby a certificate proceeding in C.C. No. 08/2020-21 was Initiated against the petitioner's firm for recovery of amount of Rs.1,16,05,510/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ten only). (xvii) Consequent to the aforesaid, the petitioner's firm has given a representation on 03.10.2020 to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein it has specifically been stated that no illegal mining has been done by the petitioner's firm and further it has been stated when the mining lease was granted to the petitioner's firm on 12.10.2015 and at that time the Circle Officer, Karmatanr prepared a map for the mining lease hold area and in the map it has been specifically mentioned that earlier already plot no. 848/A has already been mined and no illegally mining has been done by the petitioner's firm and from the date of grant of mining lease they have carried mining operations in their own mining area and no complain has been received from any corner and further the entire allegations of illegal mining is based on surmises and conjectures. 848/A has already been mined and no illegally mining has been done by the petitioner's firm and from the date of grant of mining lease they have carried mining operations in their own mining area and no complain has been received from any corner and further the entire allegations of illegal mining is based on surmises and conjectures. (xviii) Further, the petitioners again preferred a representation on 29.10.2020 to Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Parganas Area, Dumka wherein it has been stated that the entire allegation of illegal mining is totally false and concocted. It has further been stated that at the time of grant of mining lease, the circle officer, Karmatanr along with the help of circle amin has conducted measurement of the plot no.848 and prepared a map to that extent and in the map itself it has mentioned that in the plot no.848/A at village Teliadih, that plot no.848/A has already mined by the erstwhile mining lease holder, i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises and further when the inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, then notice was issued to the petitioner's firm rather they were called upon to sign on a blank paper and while signing on the blank paper they were assured that only for the purpose of measurement this signature is being taken and at the time of making signature there was no map rather the signature was taken in blank paper and later on that signature was used in the map and in the inspection report. It has further been stated in the said letter that the measurement has been done behind their back and further no illegal mining has been done in plot no.848/A to the tune of 603330 Sqft. in plot no.848/A and the entire allegation is based on surmises and conjectures and an imaginary figure has been mentioned on the basis of miscalculation without even issuing notice to the erstwhile mining lease holder to authenticate the said fact. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the impugned demands contained in letter no. 570/M dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-8), letter no. 597/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-9), letter no. 602/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-10) and letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-11) issued by the respondent-authority by filing the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners: 4. Mr. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the impugned demands contained in letter no. 570/M dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-8), letter no. 597/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-9), letter no. 602/M dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure-10) and letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure-11) issued by the respondent-authority by filing the present writ petition. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners: 4. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: (i) The ground has been taken that no power has been conferred under the executive authority to impose penalty by way of punishment in exercise of power conferred under section 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017. (ii) It has been contended that in view of Section 21 (5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the said power is vested to the State Government and there is no such delegation of power to the District Mining Officer as required under Section 26 (2) of the said Act. (iii) It has further been contended that subsequent to issuance of such impugned letters, a certificate case being C.C. No. 08 of 2020-21 has also been instituted against the petitioners in which notice dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure- 11) has been issued to them under Section 7 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners before issuance of the said impugned letters. (iv) It has been contended that even prior to the measurement made by the Circle Officer, SDO and Anchal Amin, no notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers stating that the measurement is being done and later on it was found that those signs were used by the respondents in preparing the map. (v) It has been contended that the said power is only vested upon the competent Court of jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioners by the executive authority is without jurisdiction. (v) It has been contended that the said power is only vested upon the competent Court of jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioners by the executive authority is without jurisdiction. (vi) The contention has been raised that this Court has not taken into consideration that the grievance is already lying before the Tribunal then the direction ought to have been passed by this Court for early conclusion of the said proceeding instead of passing an order of stay of further proceedings due to which the petitioner is also not getting the amount of its part. 5. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the Respondents : 6. Per contra, Mr. Om Prakash Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) It has been contended that the impugned demands are issued under the provisions of Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 which are in accordance with law and, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts. (ii) It has been contended that a joint inspection of the lease are of the petitioners’ firm has been made by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara in presence of the petitioners, the Circle Officer, Karmatar and Circle Inspector Jamtara including some other officials and in course of inspections various and several irregularities were found including a serious matter that the petitioners were working and extracting stone out of his lease old area which is situated in plot no.848/A which is a vacant land. (iii) It has been contended that the said joint inspection report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara vide letter dated 15.09.2020 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara which reveals that the petitioners’ firm was used to extract stone in the above said adjoining vacant land, i.e., plot no.848/A in place of his own leasehold area being plot no.848/B. (iv) It has been contended that in pursuance to the said joint inspection report, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara directed the District Mining Officer, Jamtara to take necessary legal action and to submit a report. (v) It has been contended that thereafter the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter dated 18.09.2020 sent a notice to the petitioners to be remain present for sectional measurement on 21.09.2020. (vi) It has been contended that thereafter sectional measurement was done in presence of the petitioners and it was found that the petitioners were engaging in extracting stone in plot no.848/B which is a vacant land and, as such, the petitioners were involved in illegal mining in contravention of JMMC Rule 2004 amended in 2017. (vii) It has been contended that the petitioners were found engaging in illegal extraction of mining work and, as such, they were liable to punishment by way of penalty as provided in Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017. (viii) It has been contended that the petitioners have a remedy to prefer an appeal under Rule 65(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 against the demand but they have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition which is not maintainable. (ix) It has further been contended that due to non-payment of the impugned demands, a certificate case being Certificate Case No.08 of 2020-21 was initiated against the petitioners but the petitioners instead of filing objection in the said proceeding directly approached this Court for quashing the impugned demands which is not a legal process and it is fit to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned orders, thus, need no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis: 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit along with the relevant documents annexed therewith. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioners are the partners of M/s Shiv Durga Mining Project and they were granted mining lease for the period of 10 years for mining of stone mine at Teladih in Khata No.27, plot No.848/B at village Teladih, P.O. & P.S. Karmtanr, District Jamtara. 10. Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioners’ firm has fulfilled all formalities and statutory requirement, thereafter mine was leased out to the petitioners. 10. Prior to issuance of mining lease, the petitioners’ firm has fulfilled all formalities and statutory requirement, thereafter mine was leased out to the petitioners. Further, the Circle Officer, Karmatanr vide letter dated 19.12.2015 addressed to Assistant Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein map was annexed wherefrom it is evident that in plot no.848 there are three Dag Nos. i.e. plot no.848/A, 848/B & 848/C and in Dag No. 848/A whose measurement is one hectare that has already been mined earlier and 848/C is a road and the Dag no.848/B is the area for which the mining lease has been granted to the petitioners’ firm. 11. Further, the mining plan has also been approved by the Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka issued by the Deputy Director, Mines, Dumka vide memo no.395/DDM, dated 23.05.2015 in the said letter which has been addressed to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara by the Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas Circle, Dumka who by exercising powers conferred under Rules 34D of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014 has approved the mining plan including the progressive mine closure plan and scheme of mining in respect of mining plan submitted under Rule 34C(i) and 34E(i) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014. The approval was made subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo dated 23.05.2015. 12. Further, after complying all the formalities the petitioners’ firm was doing mining in plot no.848/B measuring an area of 6.30 acre without any complaint from any corner. 13. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.384/M, dated 24.06.2020 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioners’ firm stating therein that why the mining operations is stopped in the mining area for which the mining lease has been granted to the petitioners’ firm which is not in consonance with the conditions of the mining lease. 14. 14. Thereafter, the petitioners had given their reply to the said show cause notice but the same was not being found satisfactory by the authority concerned, thereafter a letter no.569/M, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara wherein it had been stated that on 21.09.2020, an inspection was carried out in the mining area for which the mining lease was granted wherein several irregularities were found by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara and, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm stating therein that why not mining lease granted to the petitioners’ firm be not be cancelled. 15. It is evident that on the same day, another letter was issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamatara being letter no. 570/M, dated 23.09.2020 wherein it has been stated by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara that on 15.09.2020, the mining area for which the mining lease was granted to the petitioners’ firm at Village Teliadih in plot no.848 measuring an area of 8.30 acre, a joint inspection conducted by the S.D.O, Jamtara and after conducting the said inspection it was informed by the S.D.O, Jamtara that illegal mining has been done in the area 848/M which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioner's firm and on the basis of the said information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been done in plot no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioners’ firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining operations have been done by the petitioner's firm. It has further been stated in the said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder, i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of stone mining and, as such, the extra mining, i.e., approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft. of stone mining and, as such, the extra mining, i.e., approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft. of stone mining has illegally been done by the petitioners’ firm and, accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004 the demand notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm and the petitioners’ firm were directed to deposit Rs.58,02,755/- as a penalty within one week from the date of receipt of the letter. 16. Thereafter, again a letter was issued by the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter no.602/M, dated 01.10.2020 and in the said letter it has been mentioned that that illegal mining has been done in the area 848/M which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioners’ firm and on the basis of the said information again an inspection was carried on 21.09.2020, by Circle Inspector, Karmatanr and Anchal Amin, Karmatanr in the presence of the petitioners and it was found that mining has been done in plot no.848/A which is not the mining lease hold area of the petitioners’ firm and it was found that 7,74,780 Sqft. approximately extra mining operations have been done by the petitioners’ firm. It is mentioned in the said letter that on the basis of the record found in the office of the District Mining Officer, Jamtara it has been stated that earlier mining lease holder, i.e., M/s Bhagwati Enterprises has shown to have mined 1,71,450 Sqft. of stone mining and as such the extra mining, i.e., approximately to the tune of 6,03,330 Sqft. of stone mining has illegally been done by the petitioners’ firm and accordingly, by exercising power under 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Amendment) Concession Rule, 2004, twice the amount has to be recovered from the Mining Lease Holder who has done the illegal mining and, accordingly, a demand notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm to deposit Rs.1,16,05,510 (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Five hundred and Ten). In the said letter, it has further been stated that the earlier letters issued by the District Mining Officer being letter No.571/M, dated 23.09.2020 and letter No.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 stands modified to this extent. 17. In the said letter, it has further been stated that the earlier letters issued by the District Mining Officer being letter No.571/M, dated 23.09.2020 and letter No.597/M, dated 01.10.2020 stands modified to this extent. 17. Further, a notice contained in letter no.56, dated 19.10.2020 was issued by the Certificate Officer -cum- Deputy Director Mines, Santhal Parganas, Dumka Circle whereby a certificate proceeding being C.C. No. 08/2020-21 was initiated against the petitioners’ firm for recovery of amount of Rs.1,16,05,510/- (One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Five Thousand Five Hundred and Ten only). 18. Consequent to the aforesaid, the petitioners’ firm has given a representation on 03.10.2020 to the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, but on the said representation nothing was happened. Further, the petitioners again preferred a representation on 29.10.2020 to Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Parganas Area, Dumka wherein it has been stated that the entire allegation of illegal mining is totally false and concocted. Since as per the pleading of the writ petition the grievances of the petitioners has not been addressed, as such the present writ petition has been preferred. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically contended that no power has been conferred under the executive authority to impose penalty by way of punishment in exercise of power conferred under section 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 and the said power is only vested upon the competent Court of jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order raising the demand against the writ petitioners by the executive authority is without jurisdiction. Further, it has been contended that in view of Section 21 (5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the said power is vested to the State Government and there is no such delegation of power to the District Mining Officer as required under Section 26 (2) of the said Act. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned demands are issued under the provisions of Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 which are in accordance with law and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts. 21. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned demands are issued under the provisions of Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 which are in accordance with law and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts. 21. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties is required to consider that whether the action of the State in inflicting punishment of imposing penalty in terms of the provision of Rule 54 (6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 can be said to be just and proper in absence of conferment of power. 22. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that this Court has already adjudicated the said issue in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2025 wherein it has been categorically held that by virtue of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. It has further been observed that if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors [ (2017) 9 SCC 499 ] will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21 (5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand, in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein, the State Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the executive authority. Accordingly, power has been conferred upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated 6th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the reason notification has been issued conferring power upon the representative(s) of the State Government and therefore, the State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004. 82. So far as the power which has been exercised by the District Mining Officer under the provision of Rule 54(8) now it is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has been taken that under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction, but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra) will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the purport of Section 21 (5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004.” 23. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that this Court has categorically held in the said case that by virtue of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that this Court has categorically held in the said case that by virtue of Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax. It has further been observed by this Court that power has been conferred upon the District Mining Officer by virtue of the notification dated 6 th May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of notification dated 6 th May, 2025 and that is the reason notification has been issued conferring power upon the representative(s) of the State Government and, therefore, the State Government, i.e., representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004. 24. Accordingly, in the light of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition of which the relevant paragraphs are being quoted hereinabove, it is evident that District Mining Officer of the concerned district has power/jurisdiction to impose the penalty under rule 54(6) of the Rule 2004 as amended time to time. 25. The issues aforesaid which has been framed by this Court are answered accordingly. 26. Another contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even prior to the measurement made by the Circle Officer, S.D.O. and Anchal Amin, no notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers stating that the measurement is being done. 27. It has further been contended that subsequent to issuance of such impugned letters, a certificate case being C.C. No. 08 of 2020-21 has also been instituted against the petitioners in which notice dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure- 11) has been issued to them under Section 7 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 but, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners before issuance of the said impugned letters. 28. 28. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a joint inspection of the lease of the petitioners’ firm has been made by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara in presence of the petitioners, the Circle Officer, Karmatar and Circle Inspector, Jamtara including some other officials and in course of inspections several irregularities were found and it was revealed that the petitioners were working and extracting stone out of his lease old area which is situated in plot no.848/A which is a vacant land. Further, the District Mining Officer, Jamtara vide letter dated 18.09.2020 sent a notice to the petitioners to be remain present for sectional measurement on 21.09.2020, and thereafter sectional measurement was done in presence of the petitioners and it was found that the petitioners were engaging in extracting stone in plot which is a vacant land and, as such, the petitioners were involved in illegal mining in contravention of JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017. 29. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is required to consider herein that whether in the instant case before imposing penalty on the writ petitioners or passing the impugned orders, the principle of the natural justice has been followed by the authority concerned or not. 30. Before entering in to merit of the aforesaid issue, it requires to refer herein that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and Anr. ” , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 , wherein, the proposition has been laid down that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected. 31. ” , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 , wherein, the proposition has been laid down that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party concerned who is going to be adversely affected. 31. Such decision has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with Section 10(3) of the Indian PASSPORT ACT , wherein, the validity of the said provision was challenged on the ground that there is no provision to provide an opportunity of hearing before impounding the passport. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the said provision, but has laid down the proposition that even if there is no provision or stipulation made in the statutory provision, then also, it will be the bounded duty of the concerned authority to provide opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse decision, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment needs to be referred, which reads as under:- “We may commence the discussion of this question with a few general observations to emphasise the increasing importance of natural justice in the field of administrative law. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham Club: “We can, I think, take pride in what has been done in recent periods and particularly in the field of administrative law by invoking and by applying these principles which we broadly classify under the designation of natural justice. Many testing problems as to their application yet re-remain to be solved. But I affirm that the area of administrative action is but one area in which the principles are to be deployed. Nor are they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown. Does natural justice qualify to be described as a ‘majestic’ conception? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of assurance? I believe that it is very much more. Nor are they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown. Does natural justice qualify to be described as a ‘majestic’ conception? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of assurance? I believe that it is very much more. If it can be summarised as being fair-play in action — who could wish that it would ever be out of action? It denotes that the law is not only to be guided by reason and by logic but that its purpose will not be fulfilled; it lacks more exalted inspiration. And then again, in his speech in the House of Lords in Wiseman v. Borneman, the learned Law Lord said in words of inspired felicity: “... that the conception of natural justice should at all stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of the law. We often speak of the rules of natural justice. But there is nothing rigid or mechanical about them. What they comprehend has been analysed and described in many authorities. But any analysis must bring into relief rather their spirit and their inspiration than any precision of definition or precision as to application. We do not search for prescriptions which will lay down exactly what must, in various divergent situations, be done. The principles and procedures are to be applied which, in any particular situation or set of circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it has been said, is only ‘fair play in action’. Nor do we wait for directions from Parliament. The common law has abundant riches : there may we find what Byles, J., called ‘the justice of the common law’ ”. Thus, the soul of natural justice is “fair-play in action” and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that “fair-play in action” demands that before any prejudicial or adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard. In the United States, the right to an administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that “fair-play in action” demands that before any prejudicial or adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard. The rule was stated by Lord Denning, MR in these terms in Schmidt v. Secretary of State or Home Affairs — “where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it has not to be done without his being given an opportunity of being heard and of making representations on his own behalf”. The same rule also prevails in other Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has even gained access to the United Nations (vide American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, p. 479). Magarry, J., describes natural justice “as a distillate of due process of law” (vide Fontaine v. Chastarton16). It is the quintessence of the process of justice inspired and guided by “fair-play in action”. If we look at the speeches of the various Law Lords in Wiseman case it will be seen that each one of them asked the question “whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted unfairly so that it could be said that their procedure did not match with what justice demanded”, or, was the procedure adopted by the Tribunal “in all the circumstances unfair?” The test adopted by every Law Lord was whether the procedure followed was fair in all the circumstances and “fair-play in action” required that an opportunity should be given to the taxpayer “to see and reply to the counter-statement of the Commissioners” before reaching the conclusion that “there is a prima facie case against him”. The inquiry must, therefore, always be: does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected?” 32. We have proceeded to examine the factual aspect in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law as also to assess the fact that if the show cause has not been given before issue the demand notice, can it be said to be violation of principle of natural justice, as one of the grounds has been taken in filing the writ petition. 33. 33. From paragraphs 24 and 25 of the writ petition, it appears that it has been pleaded therein that prior to the issuance of demand notices no show cause was issued to the petitioner's firm and even no chance of hearing was given to the petitioners’ firm before issuing the impugned letter dated 23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602, dated 01.10.2020. 34. It has further been pleaded that even prior to the measurement made by the Circle Officer, S.D.O. and Anchal Amin no notice was issued to the petitioners’ firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers stating that the measurement is being done. For ready reference para-24 and 25 is being quoted as under: “24. That the petitioners state and submit that prior to the issuance of demand notices no show cause were issued to the petitioner's firm and even no chance of hearing was given to the petitioner's firm before issuing the impugned letter dated 23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602, dated 01.10.2020. 25. That the petitioners state and submit that even prior to the measurement made by the Circle Officer, SDO and Anchal Amin no notice was issued to the petitioner's firm rather the petitioners were forced to sign on certain blank papers stating that the measurement is being done and later on It was found that those signs were used by the respondents in preparing the map.” 35. In the instant case counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent concerned wherein from perusal of paragraph 30 it is evident that reply of paragraphs of 24 and 25 of the writ petition has been mentioned at para-30 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that directly demand letter was issued to the writ petitioners, for ready reference para 30 the counter affidavit is being quoted herein which reads as under: “30. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioners in paragraph- 24 to 26, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are totally false and not correct and as such hereby denied as the petitioners were present at the time of sectional measurement and were knowing the facts that they are indulged in illegal mining and hence they were issued directly demand letter as per Rule. It is not a fact that the petitioners were forced to sign after sectional measurement and inspection to put their signature. It is also to be mention here that the petitioners were issued the prior information for sectional measurement.” 36. In the aforesaid paragraph it has been stated that the petitioners were present at the time of sectional measurement and were knowing the facts that they are indulged in illegal mining and, hence, they were issued directly demand letter as per Rule. 37. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that before issuing the impugned notices dated 23.09.2020, 01.10.2020 as well as letter no.602, dated 01.10.2020, no show cause has been issued. It needs to refer herein that as per the import of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Maneka Gandhi ” (supra) that even if there is no provision or stipulation made in the statutory provision, then also, it will be the bounded duty of the concerned authority to provide opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse decision. 38. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be disputed that the party against whom the liability is being casted or putting civil consequence, then, the issuance of show-cause notice is required to be there. It is also for the purpose to show the issue of consideration by the authority concerned, since, the consideration always mean the active application of mind and the authority is to apply its mind by taking view either way, either in favour of the litigant concerned who has put his defence or in favour of the authority casting liability putting civil consequence upon the party concerned. Prima facie it appears herein that the active consideration having not available in the said demand notices and, as such, the impugned demands have been issued without seeking any explanation from the writ petitioners. Thus, from the aforesaid it appears that element of natural justice has not been followed herein. 39. Prima facie it appears herein that the active consideration having not available in the said demand notices and, as such, the impugned demands have been issued without seeking any explanation from the writ petitioners. Thus, from the aforesaid it appears that element of natural justice has not been followed herein. 39. Further, it needs to refer herein that the learned State counsel has submitted that the Government has come out with notification being Notification No. 212 dated 6 th May, 2025 issued under the provisions of Section 26 (2) of the MMDR Act, 1957 read with Section 21 (3), 21(4) and 21(5) of the Act 1957 thereof by conferring power upon the authorities, Additional Director, Mines, Ranchi for entire State of Jharkhand; Deputy Director, Mines within its territorial jurisdiction and District/Assistant Mining Officer within its territorial jurisdiction. 40. It has further been submitted that if the petitioners intend to approach the appropriate authority as per the conferment of power vide Notification No. 212 dated 6 th May, 2025, the petitioners may do so. 41. In response, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that so far it relates to passing of decision afresh in the changed circumstances of conferment of power vide Notification No. 212 dated 6 th May, 2025 is concerned, he has agreed to the same and has submitted that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration to be done by the competent authority in view of conferment of power to the authorities concerned. 42. This Court, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and further taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, has found that the impugned orders/demand notices need to be interfered with for the purpose of deciding the issue afresh. 43. Accordingly, the impugned orders/demand notices are hereby quashed and set aside. 44. Hence, the matter is hereby remitted before the authorities concerned, i.e., District Mining Officer Jamtara, for deciding the issue afresh. 45. The District Mining Officer, Jamtara, therefore, is directed to issue show-cause notice reflecting therein the irregularities said to be committed by the petitioners along with the relevant documents, if any. 46. The said show-cause notices are to be given to the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 47. 46. The said show-cause notices are to be given to the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 47. The petitioners are to respond to the said show-cause notice within a further period of three weeks. 48. The concerned District Mining Officer shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within a further period of three weeks. 49. However, it is made clear that if no response in pursuance to the aforesaid show-cause notice will be furnished by the writ petitioners, then the District Mining Officer, Jamtara, after completion of the above period of three weeks, shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 50. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stand disposed of. 51. Consequently, the interim order dated 15.02.2021 stands vacated. 52. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. Arun Kumar Rai, J.-I Agree.